Hell, just look at the USA. A woman still can't choose when she can or can't have a baby, regardless of her wealth. This being one of the supposed "civilized nations"; other nations are far less subtle with their societal controls.
Hell, just look at the USA. A woman still can't choose when she can or can't have a baby, regardless of her wealth. This being one of the supposed "civilized nations"; other nations are far less subtle with their societal controls.
Then I would say she is not financially independent, since she cannot afford to hire sufficient security to protect her from rape.
>Hell, just look at the USA. A woman still can't choose when she will or won't have a baby, regardless of her wealth.
Unless one is being held captive, one’s wealth should allow access to IUDs and travel to jurisdictions where abortion is legal. At the least, there is sufficient rule of law where the societal norm is that rape is completely unacceptable.
Although even on that front, it is, well, just completely insane to insinuate that a woman needs to be rich enough to hire a body guard to prevent her from being raped. I can't believe I had to type that sentence.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/09/politics/abortion-rights-2022...
https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/birth-control-benefits/
Also, I am using the term financially free to mean a person who not only has civil rights that would prevent them from ever becoming pregnant without their permission, but also someone who cannot be coerced, such as a woman with sufficient assets or income to sustain (and protect) herself.
>just completely insane to insinuate that a woman needs to be rich enough to hire a body guard to prevent her from being raped.
Yes, unfortunately, some women are born in societies where the concept of rape is not completely rejected.
In reality abortion is readily available until birth in many jurisdictions.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... [2]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-da...