"Kill it" he told a pregnant employee Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg allegedly told a female employee, "kill it!" when she told him she was pregnant, according to the former Bloomberg executive's 1997 lawsuit. The lawsuit filed in New York by Sekiko Sakai Garrison alleges Bloomberg followed up his first remark with another offensive comment, "Great! Number 16," apparently referring to the number of pregnant employees on his payroll. "Sexual harassment and sexual degradation of women at Bloomberg was pervasive," the lawsuit states. Sakai Garrison, who now lives in Seattle, achieved the number one ranking as regional sales manager at Bloomberg's company, where she worked from 1989 to 1995, when she was let go. https://www.nationalreview.com/news...disclosed-her-pregnancy-1997-lawsuit-alleges/ Gives some good idea how many of these rich New York City progressive employers view life inside the womb and women.
And your point about male pressure on women is what? Well it least it makes a refreshing change from “She only got pregnant because she was a slut and too lazy to have a child”
Do pro-choicers still believe it's not her child when the woman's being coerced and pressured? Is it okay for an employer to tell a female employee she needs to get an abortion, because no one is dying and no harm is really being done?
What? When TF did any Pro-Choicer say it's not her child??! What TF are you going on about?? Why would anyone have to ask if it's OK for an employer to tell an employee they have to to get an abortion ?? How totally weird !! Why would you ask that??? It is also quite wrong to pressure and coerce women to gestate....a vile thing to do...
Employees are only valuable when they can consistently perform well and don't miss a lot of work. It takes time to train a new employee. The company loses money. Makes sense that he would suggest an abortion in this cultural climate. It should not be a surprise nor offensive. It definitely should not be eligible for a lawsuit.
UH, It is wrong.... it is illegal for employers to fire women who get pregnant but thank you for pointing out why some women do get abortions.....it's not on a whim, it's to keep their income so they don't have to go on Welfare and have righties scream at them and call them names..
Unsubstantiated claim that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a disgruntled former employee who was let go by Bloomberg, who by the way passed a lie detector test regarding the allegation in 2001. The case was settled between the both of them in 2000. Trump, who is a rich New York City progressive employer was extremely pro-choice until he decided to run for president 2016, then suddenly he got religion and became pro-life. Probably a good move for him since it politically got him the support of the evangelicals.
So? Make it unnecessary and since that means ensuring control of fertility I think we should make it fair and make men be responsible for not getting women pregnant in the first place. So...... let’s make it that all men are sterilised after donating sperm. If a woman wants a child they both petition to have the sperm unfrozen and she is impregnated. This way all pregnancies would be voluntary and wanted so..... no more abortions
No. How about making both the man and the woman responsible for their actions.. Actually the answer is very complex. But it boils down to teaching people to choose not to be immoral. And to place more value on their bodies than just for sex.
I find it ironic that you believe women have a right to keep their income from their employer, but fetuses do not have a right to life from their mother.
Because having an option opens the door to women being pushed into it. A similar analogy could be drawn to minimum wage. Allowing workers to be paid less opens the doors to workers being exploited by their employer. Or don't you believe that? Many in progressive countries believe the same about women and prostitution.
FoxHastings said: ↑ it is illegal for employers to fire women who get pregnant ...it's not on a whim, it's to keep their income so they don't have to go on Welfare ... You would...but that hardly has any meaning... there is no comparison, just one more of your ridiculously extreme stretches to try to tie abortion to everything on earth... One has nothing to do with the other and your answer really has nothing to do with what I posted..
FoxHastings said: ↑ Can you explain that? How does having the right of bodily autonomy "devalue" women? So women are mindless creatures who should never have options because they are too weak and stupid to handle them ?? ?? Is that what you are saying? It sure looks like it.
I never said that....and you know it....but as usual you can't answer my questions so had to think of something silly to post to once again avoid those INCONVENIENT questions
Well, if you don't believe it, then it's a non-issue, obviously. I'm just trying to point out inconsistencies in your side. (Again, just to clarify: It's only a non-issue if you believe it's okay for employers to push women into abortions. Hopefully you can follow that really basic logic.)
If you could have you would have... But since this whole thread really has no point that may be quite difficult...
No, it's alleged remarks from a former Republican.... who does not speak for all progressives or anyone else but himself. But thank you for showing that women ARE losing their jobs if they get pregnant....another reason to get an abortion...some women can't afford to lose their jobs and would have to go on the Republican's hate list, the Welfare rolls, if they opt to keep the pregnancy.....