What is the issue over paid maternity leave?

[Gondwanaland]

I was merely considering remarks you had previously made.

Again, what has this to do with anything? Especially because you never showed yourself capable of understanding remarks previously made.

Except where work with paid maternity leave may not be available and again the woman's partner has to be factored in, along with any other existing children,

that has to be factored with any job change so that is a pointless objection

It reveals your fixation with money.

Again, you gormless twit, this entire thread is about money, and your desire to take money from others.

It is not that simple but I realise from past exchanges that you prefer easy answers to complex issues.

Oh, The irony of this coming from the fingers of the person who started this thread.

A paper from 2017
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/siers/vol1/iss1/2/

The governments of many developing nations are often not overly concerned with the conditions of the poorest in their societies, when one factors in religious/cultural mores and societal attitudes.


For developing countries to support their economies, it is almost impossible do so without participating in foreign direct investment (FDI) and being aware of globalization. Many Americans are aware that sweatshops exist, but it has become the norm to turn a blind eye. Why do sweatshops exist? Why do American brands and companies choose to do business on foreign soil? The answer to these questions is simple, cheap labor. China has been known as the “world’s factory,” along with the label “Made in China” being associated with sweatshops (Guo, Hsu, Holton, & Jeong, 2012; Yu, 2015). According to Yun-Wing (2007), China surpassed the United States in 2002 when it became the sole leader of FDI. Sweatshops are not a new phenomenon and have been in the media for decades, but are relevant during a government flare up. The most well-known flare up concerning sweatshops appeared in the 90s, with Nike, Inc. Roberts, Engardio, Bernstein, Holmes, and Ji, (2006) wrote an article about the secrets and lies of sweatshops. It revealed companies, like Nike, will go to any length to make their merchandise cheaper for Americans. China is not the only country that has experienced how American companies can manipulate and demand. Countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, India, Guatemala and Bangladesh have all been so called “victimized” by Western businesses.

Governments in developing countries needing foreign direct investment will therefore acquiesce with the demands of foreign [often American] companies. If one developing country introduces mandatory labour laws, it runs the risk that those the big corporations will move somewhere where labour is cheaper, taking that FDI with them.

Not sure what you think this has to do with anything I said.

That is not the issue as to why Labour Unions were initially formed.

It doesn't matter why they originally formed. What matters to today is how they work and harm workers today. They are nothing like their progenitors.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why do you keep using the term "breed"? Do you think people are like cattle or other non-human animals?

All mammals breed - even you and I.

If you can't afford a child, then don't have one.

That is tantamount to advocating a eugenics policy premised solely on the financial status of those who wished to breed.

[rogue06]

All mammals breed - even you and I.

That is tantamount to advocating a eugenics policy premised solely on the financial status of those who wished to breed.

Only if he advocates preventing financially unstable people from having children.

[mossrose]

All mammals breed - even you and I.

Perhaps you did. I, on the other hand, did not.

That is tantamount to advocating a eugenics policy premised solely on the financial status of those who wished to breed.

That is a lie.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps you did. I, on the other hand, did not.

Really? What method did you use? Binary fission?

That is a lie.

No it's a proposal for a eugenics policy premised on financial considerations suggesting that only those who can afford to do so [without recourse to any financial assistance from their governments] should breed.

[rogue06]

Really? What method did you use? Binary fission?



No it's a proposal for a eugenics policy premised on financial considerations suggesting that only those who can afford to do so [without recourse to any financial assistance from their governments] should breed.

Again, only if she proposed forbidding people to propagate because they were poor would it be eugenics.

[mossrose]

Really? What method did you use? Binary fission?





No it's a proposal for a eugenics policy premised on financial considerations suggesting that only those who can afford to do so [without recourse to any financial assistance from their governments] should breed.

You keep using those two words, like a scratched record that can’t move beyond where the scratch is.

Both are wrong, and the second, continual accusation, is a lie.

[Gondwanaland]

All mammals breed - even you and I.

That is tantamount to advocating a eugenics policy premised solely on the financial status of those who wished to breed.

No, no it's not. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You keep using those two words, like a scratched record that can’t move beyond where the scratch is.

Both are wrong, and the second, continual accusation, is a lie.

I ask again, did you use binary fission?

To advocate that only those who can afford to do so should have children is to discourage those who cannot afford that option - in other words it discriminates against the poorer sections of society. That is heading towards a eugenics policy based on financial considerations.

As you wrote "If you can't afford a child, then don't have one" however, when many women take that advice you oppose them seeking legal abortions.

[Gondwanaland]

Really? What method did you use? Binary fission?



No it's a proposal for a eugenics policy premised on financial considerations suggesting that only those who can afford to do so [without recourse to any financial assistance from their governments] should breed.

Yet again, no, it is not. For someone that puts on airs of being so intelligent you truly are incredibly dumb.

[mossrose]

I ask again, did you use binary fission?

To advocate that only those who can afford to do so should have children is to discourage those who cannot afford that option - in other words it discriminates against the poorer sections of society. That is heading towards a eugenics policy based on financial considerations.

As you wrote "If you can't afford a child, then don't have one" however, when many women take that advice you oppose them seeking legal abortions.

The point of my statement, which you seem either incapable of understanding or willfully ignoring, is not to GET pregnant if you cannot afford to have a child.

Of course, you prefer the abortion route, so there's that.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The point of my statement, which you seem either incapable of understanding or willfully ignoring, is not to GET pregnant if you cannot afford to have a child.

Which removes the right to breed from many people.

Of course, you prefer the abortion route, so there's that.

I merely pointed out your double standards.

You wrote "If you can't afford a child, then don't have one" yet you oppose women who may very well be unable to afford a child from seeking a legal abortion.

[tabibito]

Yet again, no, it is not. For someone that puts on airs of being so intelligent you truly are incredibly dumb.

OK - enlighten me. Eugenics can be a matter of selective breeding, and selective breeding seems to be (loosely to be sure) involved in the concept of discouraging certain classes of people from having offspring.

There have also been allegations that open slather abortion is an exercise in eugenics in so far as trying to make sure that particular racial groups use it as often as possible.

The term may not be formally accurate for the circumstances, but what better term is available?

[rogue06]

No, no it's not. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

No. She doesn't.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Only if he advocates preventing financially unstable people from having children.

By the removal of social programmes, thereby saving those of you fixated on your tax dollars, your money, such a financial consideration would prevent the less financially secure from breeding or worse lead to neonates and young infants being abandoned or killed because their parents were unable to afford to rear them.