What is the issue over paid maternity leave?

[Gondwanaland]

Which removes the right to breed from many people.

how? What rights are removed ? Be detail3d in your legal argument

I merely pointed out your double standards.

You wrote "If you can't afford a child, then don't have one"

that's basic common sense. It sounds as if you think people should unnecessarily put themselves into debt and have kids they can't afford.

yet you oppose women who may very well be unable to afford a child from seeking a legal abortion.

Yes, murder should not be an option. Choosing to not have sex or use protection are valid choices that can be made in order to not have kids before you are financially ready.

As is adoption, if the latter happens to not work.

[Gondwanaland]

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?

You've fallen for H_As absurd strawman with extreme gullibility.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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?

Eugenics refers to beliefs and practices aimed at controlling reproduction in order to “improve” the characteristics of human populations.

In the suggestion made by one or two commentators here, namely that only those who can afford to rear a child should breed, the less financially solvent would be deterred from breeding. They would not be physically prevented from breeding [i.e. by sterilisation programmes] but the withdrawal of social programmes would prevent them from safely rearing any children they may have.

This suggestion would certainly "improve" society for those who do not wish their tax dollars to be spent on assisting the feckless poor and their progeny.

However, such a notion ignores any possible unforeseen future outcomes whereby those who started out financially solvent and therefore able to rear a child may find themselves [through no fault of their own] in financial difficulty.

What would happen to them? The advocates of such policies do not tell us.

[mossrose]

Which removes the right to breed from many people.

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.

[rogue06]

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.

So we've gone from discussing whether or not such programs should be implemented to taking them away from someone. Nice but still an obvious shift.

Anywho... this was about whether recommending that someone who isn't financially stable should wait to have kids is eugenics, or is that actually preventing someone who isn't financially stable from having kids.

Tell me H_A, if the former constitutes eugenics then would suggesting to someone who is in the process of a divorce that now might not be the best time to get pregnant also be eugenics?

What if the woman was convicted of a crime and will be incarcerated for the next two to five years? Would suggesting that this would probably be a bad time to decide to get pregnant also be eugenics?

And what about a woman receiving treatment for a serious illness, say chemotherapy for cancer? Would suggesting that this would probably be a bad time to decide to get pregnant also be eugenics?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So we've gone from discussing whether or not such programs should be implemented to taking them away from someone. Nice but still an obvious shift.

Anywho... this was about whether recommending that someone who isn't financially stable should wait to have kids is eugenics, or is that actually preventing someone who isn't financially stable from having kids.

Tell me H_A, if the former constitutes eugenics then would suggesting to someone who is in the process of a divorce that now might not be the best time to get pregnant also be eugenics?

What if the woman was convicted of a crime and will be incarcerated for the next two to five years? Would suggesting that this would probably be a bad time to decide to get pregnant also be eugenics?

And what about a woman receiving treatment for a serious illness, say chemotherapy for cancer? Would suggesting that this would probably be a bad time to decide to get pregnant also be eugenics?

I did not introduce into this thread the suggestion that only those who can afford to do so should breed.

[tabibito]

You've fallen for H_As absurd strawman with extreme gullibility.

Nope. I take as plausible the concept that someone somewhen will advance the concept in all seriousness. In fact, I have vague memories of someone advancing something close to the concept sometime in the past - a perhaps unfounded accusation levelled at Family Planning. My question was - does that concept come to within the ballpark of eugenics.

[Gondwanaland]

Nope. I take as plausible the concept that someone somewhen will advance the concept in all seriousness. In fact, I have vague memories of someone advancing something close to the concept sometime in the past - a perhaps unfounded accusation levelled at Family Planning. My question was - does that concept come to within the ballpark of eugenics.

Then you can take your and H_As strawman up with that imaginary person.

[Gondwanaland]

I did not introduce into this thread the suggestion that only those who can afford to do so should breed.

So you believe it is a good idea to breed when you cannot afford to do so?

[Cow Poke]

I did not introduce into this thread the suggestion that only those who can afford to do so should breed.

Yes, by all means, all people should breed like animals, not giving any forethought to how they should care for their offspring.

It's common sense that humans should think about the future they will be bestowing on those to whom they give birth.

THAT was the intent that you, as you so often do, pervert.

[rogue06]

I did not introduce into this thread the suggestion that only those who can afford to do so should breed.

Nobody has. They have merely pointed out the wisdom of waiting until you could.

But you definitely seem to have difficulty comprehending eugenics.

So...

Anywho... this was about whether recommending that someone who isn't financially stable should wait to have kids is eugenics, or is that actually preventing someone who isn't financially stable from having kids.

Tell me H_A, if the former constitutes eugenics then would suggesting to someone who is in the process of a divorce that now might not be the best time to get pregnant also be eugenics?

What if the woman was convicted of a crime and will be incarcerated for the next two to five years? Would suggesting that this would probably be a bad time to decide to get pregnant also be eugenics?

And what about a woman receiving treatment for a serious illness, say chemotherapy for cancer? Would suggesting that this would probably be a bad time to decide to get pregnant also be eugenics?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have made my points [repeatedly] on this thread and do not see any justifiable reason to re-state them again.

I have cited a link provided by another individual that makes various suggestions on how social programmes may [based on research] go some way to promoting the health and well-being of neonates and their mothers.

The issue of offering women 12 weeks paid maternity leave [and indeed home visits by trained nurses and other medical staff] seems to have incensed some individuals.

Throughout the various comments that have been made on this thread the general concern from various parties appears not to be with how the health and well-being of mothers and their newborns may be improved, but their indignation that they may have to pay a dollar or so [possibly less] on their taxes.



You can all now enjoy yourselves.

[rogue06]

I have made my points [repeatedly] on this thread and do not see any justifiable reason to re-state them again.

I have cited a link provided by another individual that makes various suggestions on how social programmes may [based on research] go some way to promoting the health and well-being of neonates and their mothers.

The issue of offering women 12 weeks paid maternity leave [and indeed home visits by trained nurses and other medical staff] seems to have incensed some individuals.

Throughout the various comments that have been made on this thread the general concern from various parties appears not to be with how the health and well-being of mothers and their newborns may be improved, but their indignation that they may have to pay a dollar or so [possibly less] on their taxes.



You can all now enjoy yourselves.

And yet another retreat from an ill-thought out thread you started

[Cow Poke]

I have made my points [repeatedly] on this thread and do not see any justifiable reason to re-state them again.

I have cited a link provided by another individual that makes various suggestions on how social programmes may [based on research] go some way to promoting the health and well-being of neonates and their mothers.

The issue of offering women 12 weeks paid maternity leave [and indeed home visits by trained nurses and other medical staff] seems to have incensed some individuals.

Throughout the various comments that have been made on this thread the general concern from various parties appears not to be with how the health and well-being of mothers and their newborns may be improved, but their indignation that they may have to pay a dollar or so [possibly less] on their taxes.



You can all now enjoy yourselves.

Well, just like the Texas Bounty Hunter thread, this one was dumber than a box of rocks, so it's not surprising that you'd abandon it like a box of kittens on the side of the road.

You were all over the map --- from demanding that small business owners take money from their own pockets to pay people not to work.

(Albeit, you were too ignorant to know that the vast majority of employers were small business owners, and this is what they would have to do. In FACT, even after having this explained to you, you came to a point where you claimed you didn't bring "small businesses" into this - though this had become a very important part of the discussion by myself and others which you totally ignored.)

You were obviously totally unaware of how paychecks, withholding, taxation -- just about EVERY aspect of finance related to this -- actually works.

You found a PERCEIVED problem, and eventually argued yourself into an entire new federal government agency to try to address it.

In order to solve a problem, you have to...

A) understand the problem
2) understand related systems
C) understand the implications - including (perhaps especially) the unintended consequences
4) propose solutions that are not magnitudes greater than the PERCEIVED problem...

Better luck on your next disaster.

But, hey, you got some amens from the ultra-left!

[Gondwanaland]

I have made my points [repeatedly] on this thread and do not see any justifiable reason to re-state them again.

I have cited a link provided by another individual that makes various suggestions on how social programmes may [based on research] go some way to promoting the health and well-being of neonates and their mothers.

The issue of offering women 12 weeks paid maternity leave [and indeed home visits by trained nurses and other medical staff] seems to have incensed some individuals.

Throughout the various comments that have been made on this thread the general concern from various parties appears not to be with how the health and well-being of mothers and their newborns may be improved, but their indignation that they may have to pay a dollar or so [possibly less] on their taxes.



You can all now enjoy yourselves.

Taking her ball and running away from her own thread.