Why isn't guaranteed maternity leave a "pro-life" imperative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter happypeacemaker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Because the pro-life cause is largely championed by the Republican Party which is far, FAR more pro-business than they are pro-life.
Click to expand...
The pro-life cause is not largely championed by the Republican Party…
Click to expand...
Forgive me, I had the understanding that it was a part of the party’s platform.

Oh wait. It is.

The issue here is that guaranteed maternity is a political issue. In our presidential, two-party system, that ultimately segues to a discussion about party dynamics.

It is what it is.
 
phil19034 said:
You misunderstand me. I’m not complaining about how much we spend on military. I’m simply stating that the United States years ago made military spending priority number one (for many valid reasons).
Click to expand...
Ehhh. The nuclear weapon rendered the conventional set-piece army obsolete, as a defensive requirement. There will never be a Chinese invasion fleet in the littorals of San Diego because one or two bombs could utterly destroy the whole, super-expensive thing.

None-the-less, we’re still funding the most expensive military in the world…

We don’t spend too much on the military. We spend WAY WAY WAY too much.
A lot of other nations didn’t do that because they didn’t have to, and some even took advantage of the fact the US was their ally, so they prioritized their spending in other areas.
Click to expand...
Which is another excellent reason for the US to pull back the international presence.

As I understand it, congress must ratify mutual defense treaties. Which is why our participation in NATO should be suspended immediately because it seems to be a clear violation of this requirement. Frankly, it should have shuttered the windows the day the Warsaw Pact fell apart.

/end rant 🙂
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Which is another excellent reason for the US to pull back the international presence.
Click to expand...
Do you realize how much we HAVE pulled it back? Do you realize how much we AREN’T abroad any more?

Food for thought. Not a hijack, and I won’t let it become one on my watch.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Which is another excellent reason for the US to pull back the international presence.
Click to expand...
Do you realize how much we HAVE pulled it back? Do you realize how much we AREN’T abroad any more?

Food for thought. Not a hijack, and I won’t let it become one on my watch.
Click to expand...
Compared to where we were in 1989? Absolutely.

I want to go back to 1889 where an American “base” near your nation was a rarity rather than a granted (I understand the word “base” has become very loaded and is thus avoided).

Oh. Right. Hijack.

Ummm… So… It’s the responsibility of individual nations to ensure that they have the sufficient defensive capability to ensure the pro-life maternal leaves of their mothers rather than leave the responsibility to the USA. (There. An attempt at corrective segue).
 
Last edited:
That would require a vast economic change where one parent is able to find work that will support a family. Today, at least in the US, supporting a family means more than food on the table and clothes on their backs.

A family with more than 2 children must purchase an SUV (they start at 22K will get you 5 seats), a mini van (18K starting price) or wagon (21K, but that only gets you 5 seat capacity, one more kid and you need a larger vehicle).

You have to purchase car seats that cost hundreds of dollars over a childhood, and you cannot re-use because carseats now expire.

Add in full coverage car insurance and right there you need a second part time job JUST to afford to take you family out of the home.

A world where one parent can work a job that pays a family living wage is a dream now. I don’t think we will ever see that time return 😦
 
I am the one who discussed a judgement seat, and I stick by that statement.
 
Vonsalza said:
Ummm… So… It’s the responsibility of individual nations to ensure that they have the sufficient defensive capability to ensure the pro-life maternal leaves of their mothers rather than leave the responsibility to the USA. (There. An attempt at corrective segue).
Click to expand...
I give that five stars for effort. 🙂
Back to the thread.
 
Because maternity leave, while a good thing, isn’t one the same level as protecting life.

A business not having flexible maternity leave is not on the same level as actively killing a life. If a company CAN implement maternity leave, then I think the absolutely moral thing is to allow it, and the longer they can afford it, the better.

However, let’s say there is a small Mom-n-Pop store. They have 5 employees. One of their employees just has a baby. However, this small store can only afford limited maternity leave. If they could offer more, they definitely would. It is not immoral for that store to not provide what is ideal if it is outside of their capability. This is now a prudential judgement call. This doesn’t mean they are now actively trying to hurt the mother and child.

So there is a difference.

If, however, a law is implemented to enforce that small store to offer maternity leave outside of their ability, then it is now hurting this small store and could lead to laying off employees, which leaves them even worse off. Not because they want to lay them off, but because they have absolutely no option if they want to ensure their store can remain standing.

There has to be an understanding of economics and the morality behind certain decisions, even if they aren’t the ideal.
 
Last edited:
It would not have been repeated in all 18 debates if it was a bogus statistic.

It is common knowledge, and I don’t feel the need to do your homework because you slept through an entire year.
 
Vonsalza said:
I want to go back to 1889 where an American “base” near your nation was a rarity rather than a granted (I understand the word “base” has become very loaded and is thus avoided).
Click to expand...
And will you equally turn your back on refugees, from conflicts we didn’t help prevent?
 
Wow. Such hubris. YOU made the claim. In any form of rational debate the onus is on the claimant to cite sources. If you have no verifiable sources, then, it is okay to say “I don’t know where that number came from, I heard it on TV”
 
Well we did fine with my husband’s middle class income while I was on unpaid maternity leave for 6 weeks following our 2nd child. I returned to a very strenuous part time job too-think helping quadriplegics. We also recently bought a Dodge Journey-a 7 passenger and are now paying down credit pretty fast. If it weren’t for the credit-a lot of which was my husband’s before we got married, I could probably be a full time SAHM but I only work 2 days a week for 12 hours(1 weekday, 1 weekend day) so its not too bad.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
I want to go back to 1889 where an American “base” near your nation was a rarity rather than a granted (I understand the word “base” has become very loaded and is thus avoided).
Click to expand...
And will you equally turn your back on refugees, from conflicts we didn’t help prevent?
Click to expand...
He’s also probably not aware of our economic impact in many places.

The mayor of Landshtul, Germany actually testified before Congress of what would happen if we moved the current medical facility from his town.

The new one is planned to stay there, and not move.

I’m hijacking. :woman_facepalming:t3:
 
Last edited:
Monica83 said:
Well we did fine with my husband’s middle class income while I was on unpaid maternity leave for 6 weeks following our 2nd child. I returned to a very strenuous part time job too-think helping quadriplegics. We also recently bought a Dodge Journey-a 7 passenger and are now paying down credit pretty fast. If it weren’t for the credit-a lot of which was my husband’s before we got married, I could probably be a full time SAHM but I only work 2 days a week for 12 hours(1 weekday, 1 weekend day) so its not too bad.
Click to expand...
You’re not everyone, however.
 
Thank God that your husband has been able to find such employment. This does not mean that everyone can find such, I’m sure you would agree.
 
Sure, but if he made less, I would have a fulltime job and just return to work after my PTO/disability was expended if I had a Csection. There are always ways to make it work. You have to budget for your maternity leave like anything else. The decision to reproduce should be considered carefully.
 
Monica83 said:
The decision to reproduce should be considered carefully.
Click to expand...
I honestly believe you don’t mean that to sound the way it means to sound (that only people of a certain social strata/income bracket should have kids).

Many families in our world today live paycheck to paycheck. They do not have the luxury of saving PTO days for maternity because they either have kids who eat up the PTO days as soon as they accrue or they don’t GET PTO at all.

When someone has lived in the comfort of a middle class life it is difficult to understand what is like further down on the totem pole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top