and I think that the poorer and less educated, the more likely to have lots of children, often starting in the teen years. Yes, some people use reproduction as a means of income in the form of welfare. I've always thought the rationale for welfare in that situation was that a) the parents might not always be poor and presumably could care for their children without support eventually, and b) people who love children and want to have them shouldn't be denied that just because they are too poor to care for them. In this case, it's treated as a right and I'm not sure I agree with that policy. To me, having children when you can't afford it is irresponsible and selfish. Even with means it seems to me a vanity thing, when there are children in foster care right there in your own city (owing to the lack of stability that comes with having children too young, being uneducated and too poor to care for them properly without assistance). But then I'm not a "baby" person. I prefer the company of animals to most people, babies especially.
Also, regardless of socioeconomic status, there's long been social expectation that straight couples MUST have children. Fortunately that sentiment is becoming less prevalent over time.
Having said all that, I'm ecstatic that Tammy Duckworth is leading the way for mothers to be being treated wih dignity, accommodation and respect, ESPECIALLY in a profession/setting that has long been considered the domain of old white men (who ironically spend a considerable amount of time deciding what women can and can't do with their own bodies).
= new reply since forum marked as read
