Essay Topics
Types of Essays
Essay Checklist
Word Counter
Readability Score
Essay Rewriter
MP Kirstie Marshall has recently sparked controversy after breastfeeding her baby in a parliamentary chamber. Marshall was ejected from the Legislative Assembly for meeting her duties as a mother and as a parliamentary representative, when breastfeeding her 11-day-old daughter at work. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, Marshall should have been able to do this and supply her child with the best form of nutrition, however she was denied the right to meet her two obligations at once. Furthermore, the Bracks government has recently made innovative, more "family-friendly" changes to Parliament, so how could they try to make Marshall neglect her familie's needs? MP Marshall, along with other mothers, would be aware that breast milk is the best source of nutrients for a newborn baby. However, while she was doing her best to ensure baby Charlotte will be healthy, she was ordered to leave her workplace. 11-day-old Charlotte Marshall would be on a very demanding food schedule, needing food every couple of hours. This demand would need to be met by mother, Kirstie, while she works at some time. "I would like to be able to provide for my baby without compromising my role as parliamentarian" - Marshall, 27/2/03, The Age Baby formulas do not supply all the necessary nutrients to a baby that only breast milk can. Marshall, a first time mother, did what she thought was necessary: breastfeeding hungry Charlotte in her workplace, which just happens to be Parliament. When elected into Parliament her electorate knew she would be capable of having a new baby whilst representing them in the House of Representatives. Despite this, Marshall was not given the chance to successfully perform her obligations at the same time. She was gratuitously ordered to leave the chamber, which caused her to miss part of her job, simply, because she thought she was doing the right thing: being a mother and Parliamentarian at the same time. How can Parliament supposedly be called more "family-friendly" when they remove an 11-day-old baby and her mother from the Legislative Assembly? Just a week before MP Marshall was ordered to leave the chamber because she was breastfeeding her baby, the Bracks government announced changes to make Parliament more "family-friendly". One change included stopping debate so that Parliamentarians could return to their families at home; but family members who require care obviously cannot go to Parliamentarians at work. Our "family-friendly" representatives label a harmless 11-day-old baby, who cannot hear or make sense of anything in the chamber, a "stranger". No one was at any risk by Charlotte's presence in the chamber. For MP Marshall's baby daughter to be called a "stranger" to the house is a cruel and unnecessary label. This really says a lot for the reform strategies of the Bracks government, when they make "family-friendly" changes, yet call a baby-at-breast a "stranger" that must be removed. Under the Equal Opportunity Act a mother should be able to breastfeed her child in public and in the workplace. Kirstie Marshall was in her workplace when she was unfairly removed for breastfeeding her 11-day-old infant. The Act says a person cannot be discriminated against for breastfeeding in their place of employment, but Marshall was discriminated against in the place where this law was made. Parliament's rules about their own workplace make it unacceptable for Marshall to perform, a socially acceptable act. MP Marshall, under the Equal Opportunity Act has every right to breastfeed her baby in the workplace, however Parliament rules conflict with this moral right. Marshall should have been allowed to breastfeed baby Charlotte in Parliament whilst performing her job as a parliamentary representative, but she was denied the chance. Marshall was removed unjustly from the Legislative Assemble for breastfeeding, and if she had been working elsewhere, she could have made a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission, but rules apparently change once inside Parliament House. For over 100 years Parliament has had a standing order banning non-MP's from the floor during business. These non-MPs are called "strangers to the house", just like baby Charlotte Marshall was. When this rule was created, women were not even allowed to vote, let alone sit as Parliamentarians. Over the century many things have changed, women can now vote, women can be members in Parliament, and now they can even be speakers in Parliament, a role that was previously only for men. Changes are meant to be made to meet and suit community views and values, however in Kirstie Marshall's case, it has not happened. Marshall has brought about the fact that parliamentary women need to breastfeed at work. The standing order, from over 100 years ago, needs to be looked at and changed to suit the needs of parliamentarians, so maybe when Charlotte has a child, she will not be unfairly discriminated against like her mother. MP Kirstie Marshall was ejected from the Legislative Assembly, and her workplace, for breastfeeding her baby. In defiance of the Equal Opportunity Act, Parliament has its own rules labelling 11-day-old Charlotte a "stranger", who along with her mother had to leave the chamber. Our so called more "family-friendly" Parliament has not lived up to its self-proclaimed name, by denying Marshall the chance to meet her mother and representative duties at the same time.
Essay Writing Checklist
The following guidelines are designed to give students a checklist to use, whether they are revising individually or as part of a peer review team.
Introduction
  • Is the main idea (i.e., the writer's opinion of the story title) stated clearly?
  • Is the introductory paragraph interesting? Does it make the reader want to keep on reading?
Body Paragraph
  • Does each body paragraph have a clear topic sentence that is related to the main idea of the essay?
  • Does each body paragraph include specific information from the text(including quoted evidence from the text, if required by the instructor)that supports the topic sentence?
  • Is there a clear plan for the order of the body paragraphs (i.e., order of importance, chronology in the story, etc.)?
  • Does each body paragraph transition smoothly to the next?
Conclusion
  • Is the main idea of the essay restated in different words?
  • Are the supporting ideas summarized succinctly and clearly?
  • Is the concluding paragraph interesting? Does it leave an impression on the reader?
Overall Essay
  • Is any important material left unsaid?
  • Is any material repetitious and unnecessary?
  • Has the writer tried to incorporate "voice" in the essay so that it has his/her distinctive mark?
  • Are there changes needed in word choice, sentence length and structure, etc.?
  • Are the quotations (if required) properly cited?
  • Has the essay been proofread for spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.?
  • Does the essay have an interesting and appropriate title?
Argumentative Essay on Breastfeeding
Trending Essay Topics
Explore today's trending essay topics:
Reference
Feel free to use content on this page for your website, blog or paper we only ask that you reference content back to us. Use the following code to link this page:
Terms · Privacy · Contact
Essay Topics © 2020

Argumentative Essay On Breastfeeding

Words: 875    Pages: 3    Paragraphs: 7    Sentences: 38    Read Time: 03:10
Highlight Text to add correction. Use an editor to spell check essay.
              MP Kirstie Marshall has recently sparked controversy after breastfeeding her baby in a parliamentary chamber. Marshall was ejected from the Legislative Assembly for meeting her duties as a mother and as a parliamentary representative, when breastfeeding her 11-day-old daughter at work. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, Marshall should have been able to do this and supply her child with the best form of nutrition, however she was denied the right to meet her two obligations at once. Furthermore, the Bracks government has recently made innovative, more "family-friendly" changes to Parliament, so how could they try to make Marshall neglect her familie's needs?
             
              MP Marshall, along with other mothers, would be aware that breast milk is the best source of nutrients for a newborn baby. However, while she was doing her best to ensure baby Charlotte will be healthy, she was ordered to leave her workplace. 11-day-old Charlotte Marshall would be on a very demanding food schedule, needing food every couple of hours. This demand would need to be met by mother, Kirstie, while she works at some time.
             
              "I would like to be able to provide for my baby without compromising my role as parliamentarian" - Marshall, 27/2/03, The Age Baby formulas do not supply all the necessary nutrients to a baby that only breast milk can. Marshall, a first time mother, did what she thought was necessary: breastfeeding hungry Charlotte in her workplace, which just happens to be Parliament. When elected into Parliament her electorate knew she would be capable of having a new baby whilst representing them in the House of Representatives. Despite this, Marshall was not given the chance to successfully perform her obligations at the same time. She was gratuitously ordered to leave the chamber, which caused her to miss part of her job, simply, because she thought she was doing the right thing: being a mother and Parliamentarian at the same time.
             
              How can Parliament supposedly be called more "family-friendly" when they remove an 11-day-old baby and her mother from the Legislative Assembly? Just a week before MP Marshall was ordered to leave the chamber because she was breastfeeding her baby, the Bracks government announced changes to make Parliament more "family-friendly". One change included stopping debate so that Parliamentarians could return to their families at home; but family members who require care obviously cannot go to Parliamentarians at work. Our "family-friendly" representatives label a harmless 11-day-old baby, who cannot hear or make sense of anything in the chamber, a "stranger". No one was at any risk by Charlotte's presence in the chamber. For MP Marshall's baby daughter to be called a "stranger" to the house is a cruel and unnecessary label. This really says a lot for the reform strategies of the Bracks government, when they make "family-friendly" changes, yet call a baby-at-breast a "stranger" that must be removed.
             
              Under the Equal Opportunity Act a mother should be able to breastfeed her child in public and in the workplace. Kirstie Marshall was in her workplace when she was unfairly removed for breastfeeding her 11-day-old infant. The Act says a person cannot be discriminated against for breastfeeding in their place of employment, but Marshall was discriminated against in the place where this law was made. Parliament's rules about their own workplace make it unacceptable for Marshall to perform, a socially acceptable act. MP Marshall, under the Equal Opportunity Act has every right to breastfeed her baby in the workplace, however Parliament rules conflict with this moral right. Marshall should have been allowed to breastfeed baby Charlotte in Parliament whilst performing her job as a parliamentary representative, but she was denied the chance. Marshall was removed unjustly from the Legislative Assemble for breastfeeding, and if she had been working elsewhere, she could have made a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission, but rules apparently change once inside Parliament House.
             
              For over 100 years Parliament has had a standing order banning non-MP's from the floor during business. These non-MPs are called "strangers to the house", just like baby Charlotte Marshall was. When this rule was created, women were not even allowed to vote, let alone sit as Parliamentarians. Over the century many things have changed, women can now vote, women can be members in Parliament, and now they can even be speakers in Parliament, a role that was previously only for men. Changes are meant to be made to meet and suit community views and values, however in Kirstie Marshall's case, it has not happened. Marshall has brought about the fact that parliamentary women need to breastfeed at work. The standing order, from over 100 years ago, needs to be looked at and changed to suit the needs of parliamentarians, so maybe when Charlotte has a child, she will not be unfairly discriminated against like her mother.
             
              MP Kirstie Marshall was ejected from the Legislative Assembly, and her workplace, for breastfeeding her baby. In defiance of the Equal Opportunity Act, Parliament has its own rules labelling 11-day-old Charlotte a "stranger", who along with her mother had to leave the chamber. Our so called more "family-friendly" Parliament has not lived up to its self-proclaimed name, by denying Marshall the chance to meet her mother and representative duties at the same time.
             
Argumentative Essay Mother Essay 
Tip: Use our Essay Rewriter to rewrite this essay and remove plagiarism.
Next Ethics Essay: Honesty Is The Best Policy
Next Mother Essay: My Mother's Name
Next Argumentative Essay: Airport Security

Add Notes

Have suggestions, comments or ideas? Please share below. Don't forget to tag a friend or classmate.
clear
Formatting Help
Submit