"knocked up" has always meant, to me, to my peers, and in the media, as an unplanned and unwanted out-of-wedlock pregnancy. It is very offensive.
If one believes their children are just as well-off in daycare as they are with them, one would be correct. Not every mother is interested in spending 24/7 with their children. But I am 1,000% more dedicated to the comfort, development, health, happiness and spiritual growth of my child than any stranger, friend, or non-nuclear relative could ever be. I KNOW my son is better off in all areas under my and my husband's care.
Sometimes mothers have to work for pay outside of the home. That is a fact. These mothers are fully capable of compensating with extra care, devotion, and attachment parenting techniques when they are home. That is not supposed to be the debate here.
The question is, should SAHMING be a right? And my answer is yes. If childcare can be subsidized, why can't SAHMing? Why isn't unpaid childcare by a parent seen as real work, when paid childcare by a stranger is? Why does it make economic and social sense for me to go to a paid job and get the government to give me free or cheap substandard childcare when I could leave that job for someone else and give my own child superior care, or at the very least take off enough time to care for my infant until he is not as dependent on my breastmilk and the proximity of my feel and sound and smell? Why isn't caring for tomorrow's leaders and workers and teachers and parents seen as a valuable contribution to society and a benefit to the masses?
Mothering Magazine itself was established to promote the value of connected, devoted parenting, including homeschooling, which would almost invariably require a SAHP. It is a celebration of motherwork as real work and worthwhile work. It is bothersome too see it's forums tolerate posts that claim otherwise.