Overturning Roe V Wade

[Kenny]

Curious, what’s the federal standard for Maternity and Paternity leave in the US?

THAT, my dear friend, is something that isn't federally mandated and should be. At this point it is up to each business.

 

[SomeRandom]

THAT, my dear friend, is something that isn't federally mandated and should be. At this point it is up to each business.

Wow… That’s actually pretty awful, ngl

What do you think is a fair minimum?

I think our national minimum required by law is 12 weeks (and paternity is now included in that. Which I wholeheartedly approve of.)
Though employees can take up to an additional 2 years of unpaid leave (or partly paid, depending on the company benefits.)
Personally I think a bit longer is better, just to be safe. But I guess that might depend on the type of work and person.
I’ve known folks rearing to go after the minimum and some who needed a bit more time off, for health reasons

 

[Kenny]

Wow… That’s actually pretty awful, ngl

What do you think is a fair minimum?

I think our national minimum required by law is 12 weeks (and paternity is now included in that. Which I wholeheartedly approve of.)
Though employees can take up to an additional 2 years of unpaid leave (or partly paid, depending on the company benefits.)
Personally I think a bit longer is better, just to be safe. But I guess that might depend on the type of work and person.
I’ve known folks rearing to go after the minimum and some who needed a bit more time off, for health reasons

Goodness... that is a good question as to what is a "fair" minimum. Obviously, a mom and pop business probably couldn't afford 12 weeks whereas a multi-billion business could.

Its debatable, of course, but off the top of my head, two weeks just to recoup would be a great beginning point.

But I think it goes beyond that, IMO. My wife and I decided that when we would have children, we wold opt out of a larger home, two cars, multiple TV's, the latest I-phone, the yearly trips to Disney et al for her to have a full-time job of raising children.

The benefits were out of this world. No sex issues, no identity issues, didn't have to wonder where they were, no run-ins with the law or those in authority, balance and intelligent children that are now doing the same for their children.

I think parents ought to love their children more in that fashion. (Not that there isn't some cases that require both to work but generally speaking)

 

[SomeRandom]

Goodness... that is a good question as to what is a "fair" minimum. Obviously, a mom and pop business probably couldn't afford 12 weeks whereas a multi-billion business could.

Its debatable, of course, but off the top of my head, two weeks just to recoup would be a great beginning point.

But I think it goes beyond that, IMO. My wife and I decided that when we would have children, we wold opt out of a larger home, two cars, multiple TV's, the latest I-phone, the yearly trips to Disney et al for her to have a full-time job of raising children.

The benefits were out of this world. No sex issues, no identity issues, didn't have to wonder where they were, no run-ins with the law or those in authority, balance and intelligent children that are now doing the same for their children.

I think parents ought to love their children more in that fashion. (Not that there isn't some cases that require both to work but generally speaking)

I think our government reimburses employers the losses they would incur for said Paid Parental Leave anyway. So the “mom and pop” small businesses wouldn’t really care that much here. Or they can apply for “grants” to cover the costs.
Something along those lines anyway. I mean it’s what we pay taxes for, right?

If that happened in the US, you’d be in favour of all businesses having mandatory parental leave I take it?

I don’t know of many families (outside of people with really great paying jobs) that can even live on a single income.
That you and your wife managed to devote your time to child rearing is commendable. I wish our system allowed for more intimate family time. Especially for single parents having to worry about putting food on the table.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You are right. What is being proposed to do to some women is worse.

Are you willing to have a conversation about it or just claim abortion is worse for women than the unborn.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Every person has that right. Now prove that a fetus is a "person". Not a Homo sapiens, but a being with the same right as others. What standard would you use?

The fetus whether it is a person or not does not matter. What matters is that it has a chance to become a person. It is growing toward that path. You agree the zygote can eventually become a person at some point, right?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You can't.
Amd what is different about a natural termination and abortion? Both involve a non-aware growth that never new it existed.

The difference is that natural abortions happen due to biology not by an unethical choice by humans. Do you agree that a zygote has a chance to become a person if left alone?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But not all. Evangelicals keep skewing things.

I never claimed all.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No you don’t. Congress could just pass a law.

(I mean, if Congress could just pass a law, which seems unlikely)

They could, but why have they not already done that? Any federal law would be challenged and most likely overturned by the supreme court or just eliminated by a republican congress and president in the future. It is not a right found in the constitution so it should be left to the sates per the constitution. We are assuming here that this will be the decision, that is still up in the air.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, because those are constitutional rights.

But there is no constitutional right to ban abortion.

Yes, so the constitution says it should be left to the states. I am not sure the dems have the votes to do that anyway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes... many believe that. The question is and some people would ask, if you have different blood-type, different heart-beat, different brain, different fingerprints, different body, is it the same body?

The person who asks that didn't read what I wrote.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They probably will happen anyway but at least they won't be as easy to get as going to the corner store for a soda, perhaps giving those women time to think about what they are doing and why.

Ah yes, let's infantilize women.

Do you really think getting an abortion is "as easy to get as going to the corner store for a soda?" And do you really think that's how people view abortions and make decisions about them?
Come on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All actions have consequences....
I was only saying that people are responsible for their actions and the consequences, Imo.

You just don't agree that having an abortion amounts to a person taking responsibility for their actions?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's right, but it is not by God's design when a woman 'chooses' to have an abortion.

Spontaneous abortions are fairly common, so if there is a God, this God apparently isn't bothered all that much by aborting babies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Correct their errors at whose expense? It is the fallacy of false equivalence to compare being forced to get vaccinated to not being able to easily get an abortion. Moreover, making abortions more difficult to obtain is not forcing a woman to bear the child they do not want. Only if abortions were banned nationwide would we have something to discuss.

In many cases, it is exactly that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All or nothing huh. Make sure you
stay outta jail

A person's body is their entire being. That's all we really have. In light of that, the right to govern what happens to one's own body without external influence or coercion is paramount.
For the same reason I can't force you to give me your kidney to save my dying friend's life, you can't force a person to carry a fetus to term if they don't want it.
People will do what they have to do to retain governance over their own body. Whether abortion is legal or not.

 

[Wandering Monk]

My understanding it that the opinion is that it should not be determine by the court system. It should be determine by legislation. So it becomes the the responsibility of the state or even federal legislation to pass laws regarding abortion. Basically they want to kick the ball back to the law makers to take responsibility for the laws that govern us.

States rights all over again, eh? Slavery was portrayed as a states rights issue by defenders of the institution and was legal in nearly every state of the US prior to the Civil War.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I fail to see many things in reference to abortion.

I was responding to your post that said, "I don't think that financial ruin is part of the issue. If you are pregnant, there are helps to have the child within your budget. Then, when you have a child, you have extra food stamps, extra medicare, extra baby necessities, child end-of-year credit financial gift and other things."

I demonstrated that "financial ruin" is most definitely part of the issue. You declare that there are all kinds of financial support systems in place so that women shouldn't have any problem having babies and supporting them (food stamps, medicare, etc.) when in actuality these systems are not helping people. Remember, my original point was that in a country where people have to pay out of pocket to receive medical care, where there is no time off from work given to new mothers, and where there is no universal childcare system, it's going to be problematic to force people to have children.

And don't forget, these programs you mention are all things Republicans have, and will continue to cut funding for. They just think they're "entitlements." This is in a country that has an abysmal maternal death rate when compared to other developed countries, so something is clearly going wrong with all these fabulous programs you've mentioned.

Are there more costs when you have babies? And?

Of course there are more costs when you have babies. There are more costs to just being pregnant alone, long before you've even had a baby. And they aren't all monetary.
You do know that a pregnancy changes a person's entire body, right, both physically and psychologically? And you've heard of post-partum depression, right? What programs and systems are in place to deal with that?

What do you mean, and? That's the point. Forcing people to have children imposes a financial cost upon them that they may not be able to bear (among other things).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes.

Good.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Planned Parenthood fights ultrasound- except when it's for sex-selection abortion - ClinicQuotes

Wow, that's something of a misleading headline, isn't it?

“The information about a woman’s pregnancy has to be made available to her. We can’t legislate what a man or a woman will do with medical information. Physicians with problems with the way a patient will use information they give them should let the patient know so they can go elsewhere.”

I see nothing wrong with this statement.

I also fail to see what it has to do with my question about birth control.