If you were President, what would your policies be?

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by ProphetofGanja

Jobs and Lennon also didn't start out as rich superstars, either.

Of course not. They got a chance and made it on their own. No silver spoons for them. And look what they contributed in their lifetimes.

Originally Posted by ProphetofGanja

But yeah, rich people have abortions too. Being wealthy would mean that you are more secure financially and would be able to provide the material components necessary for child-rearing but it doesn't automatically imply that you'd be capable parents, either. Plenty of rich people simply outsource their parenting duties to hired help, which in itself can be damaging to a child (ie. making the child feel unwanted by its own parents, pawned off onto servants, etc.).

Agreed being wealthy doesn't imply great parenting abilities. And being poor doesn't imply your going to abuse/neglect your child.

Side note: I don't know if I've ever met someone who hasn't been somewhat damaged by their childhood.

[ProactiveMan]

I'm not comfortable with a consensus vote on who is and who is not allowed to pursue the biological imperative. Take it as given that any attempt to control reproduction at a governmental level will cause more problems that it solves.

You don't have to like it, but you can't prevent people from reproducing, and you can't force them to carry to term, or raise their offspring. If they want out bad enough, they'll find a way regardless of consequence.

[Utrommaniac]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

I see BubblyShell22 is a fan of back-alley coat-hanger abortions, not even surprised.

Yeah, I was going to say, they tried to make it illegal and it didn't work. At all. That being one of the primary reasons.

As for me...paid parental leave - for both mothers and fathers (whether the child is biological or adopted) for at least four months to start, and universal healthcare. Might help knock down the already declining numbers in abortion thanks to accessible birth control and health education. The majority of abortions happen simply because a woman can't afford to carry on a pregnancy, let alone have time to care for a baby. And in most of those cases, there's already a child in the picture.

Making abortions illegal isn't going to solve problems - it will only make them worse. What will help is providing help to those who need it, and that includes impoverished mothers.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Utrommaniac

As for me...paid parental leave - for both mothers and fathers (whether the child is biological or adopted) for at least four months to start

I just don't see how that's supposed to work. Let's say I've inherited some money, I'm opening up a Subway restaurant, got the franchise fees down and all. I've figured out finances up the wazoo, barely, but I've got enough to cover the cost of operation and wages and all to where I break even and earn just enough profit to make this whole thing worthwhile. I hire Susan, who's supposed to run the place from 8-5, 5 days out of the week... then she turns out to be pregnant, and giving birth in 4 months... now, as the business owner, I suddenly need to pay her for 4 months off of work? That seems pretty crazy. I'll still have to hire someone new to replace her and pay their wages, too. How is that supposed to work or remotely be fair? Or are we saying there should be some governmental well of money that should be dipped into to pay for these kind of times off of work?

Getting pregnant and having a baby needs to have consequences, and (as such) well-thought out foresight. That's the only way this works. There should be no rewards for, "Oh you decided to get knocked up and have a kid? Here's paid 4 months off. You need more? Cool."

Granted, over the last few years laws have changed. When my daughter was born I was allowed to use -- at the time, where I was at -- the 7 paid sick/family leave days a year I get to do so. That was more than I was expecting.

[Utrommaniac]

There are only nine countries in the world that doesn't provide maternity leave. The US is one of them. The other eight are tiny little spits of islands where women don't tend to work anyway. Most sources will credit two or three, but Papua New Guinea is pretty much always in there.

Having a baby means having PPD, having all your organs setting back into place after being pushed far out from where they should be, being unable to sit for long periods of time, potentially having to recover from c-section with the US rates being worryingly high. In regards to the health of both the mother and baby, the lack of leave can be terrible for both.

As for your business, providing leave can actually be a benefit.

Most of all, you won't have to work with Susan while she's struggling with PPD, being unable to stand because it's too painful, being unable to sit because it's too painful, having to leave her station every two or three hours for half an hour so she can pump milk should she have decided to breastfeed (in a likely not-so-private area), thus using some of her valuable work time, and struggling with being apart from her tiny newborn as a whole. She'll be exhausted from physically recovering from giving birth and caring for her newborn all night, as she's still trying learning its patterns. Which will affect her work morale. Which will affect everyone else's work morale. Four months is adequate time for her to heal physically and mentally, sparing you the headache of spending nine hours a day for five days with her postpartum sh!t. Which on a literal level is probably very hard for her to do. And thus will also make work difficult for her and everyone else. Granted, even when she returns from leave, she'd still have to duck out for 30 minutes every couple of hours, but at least everything else should be managed.

[ProactiveMan]

The way it works here is that you are only entitled to paid parental leave if you have been employed with the company for 12 months or more. If you're running a Subway and you hire someone who is four months pregnant, you're not obligated to offer PPL. That's casual and full/part-time too.

It is a complication, but no more than a lot of other things. A lot of companies offer PPL that is considerably better than the legal baseline too.

[Candy Kappa]

The Father's Quota of the Norwegian's Parental Leave system have cut down the weeks, thanks to the Conservatives running the government, which sucks. A friend of mine had 14 weeks with his first kid, now he only gets 10 with his second kid.

[BubblyShell22]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Like I said, it must be nice to live where you live, Larry.
Except for the fact that gay people don't exist there.

Well, excuse me for actually valuing human life which we all must do every day no matter what. And you once said you're against abortions so you are obviously a liar in that regard.

And abortion has nothing to do with gays. It has to do with respecting life. I don't believe in abortion just like I don't believe in the transgender lifestyle or bi-sexuality. As far as I'm concerned you are either gay or straight and that's it. We aren't meant to like both sexes and aren't designed that way. I'm fine with homosexuals and heterosexuals but bi-sexuals and transgenders are mentally ill.

And I did state in my policy that a rape victim doesn't have to keep the baby and can place it for adoption. When anyone hears about adoption, they automatically just think of foster care, but in reality there are other options. There are adoption websites where people can choose who cares for their baby and even adoption centers now. You can choose to have an open adoption or a closed one and it really isn't that bad. I feel it's better to give a child a chance at life rather than just taking it away just because of how it was conceived since it's not the child's fault. And I also feel it's better to give parents who are unable to conceive the joy of having a child from someone else who wants to give it a good life and a good family.

I find it sad that people who are for abortion exist. All of you get mad when there's a terrorist attack, a shooting, or a natural disaster that kills people all of the time and you are always sad when a celebrity dies. But when it comes to an innocent baby who has no voice and no say in how they live, you support killing it for certain reasons. Honestly, anyone who is pro-choice is no better than a terrorist who bombs buildings or a shooter who kills people because of their own messed up vendetta.

It's hypocrisy at its finest and that's the saddest thing of all.

[plastroncafe]

That's nice, Larry.

Andrew, kind of not liking your use of language here, because it sounds to me like you're placing all of the responsibility for a pregnancy on the woman.

And there should be additional consequences for a woman who decides to get Knocked Up?
Are pregnancy, labor and delivery, and potentially having to care for a newborn not consequence enough?

Pay parental leave should be a cost of doing business. The same amount of Parental leave should be provided regardless of gender identity.
To suggest otherwise is to downplay the role of non gestational parents in the life of a child.

Where I work you're allowed to use short-term disability after you've used up all your vacation time. And you can use this time regardless of whether you have given birth or adopted a child.

Course at the end of that you still used up all your vacation time. So heaven forbid that child, or you yourself, get sick. Nothing says fantastic job performance like making your employees work when they're ill.

There's also research to suggest that it takes a man's career longer to bounce back after the use of family leave time then it does a woman. That's not okay either.

[TurtleWA]

Yeah a few consequences of taking parental leave are reduced access to training, promotions, and money. According to Canadian research childless women earn up to 30% more than mothers with children.

If it happens in the US it will most likely be an insurance type payment system. Employees select various amounts to contribute into the parental leave system. Then when you need it your paid not your full working wages but a set percent (maybe 55%) of your yearly earnings. Distributed every week for so many weeks.

But for part time employees, self employed and college students are probably out of luck. It would be challenging for them to have the work history of paying in enough to collect anything. Or maybe it won't be a choice on how much employees pay in but a predetermined amount deducted from monthly pay checks. Also everyone pays even if you don't have kids or ever want them.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Andrew, kind of not liking your use of language here, because it sounds to me like you're placing all of the responsibility for a pregnancy on the woman.

And there should be additional consequences for a woman who decides to get Knocked Up?
Are pregnancy, labor and delivery, and potentially having to care for a newborn not consequence enough?

Oh, I mean it equally for the mother and father. No, not enough, what about financial consequences?

And I don't mean "consequences" of a punishment nature. Having kids is awesome, if you're in a place where you can do it. I wish I had more kids. But this is a major life-changing choice you shouldn't go into blindly and I don't know that it should really be on everyone else to "have your back" financially when and if you choose to do so. Because it's a choice, a completely elective one.

Pay parental leave should be a cost of doing business.

Different example. So I break open my piggy bank and finally open my bikini barista stand. I have a total of 4 full-time employees there, all 4 of them get pregnant in the same summer and now 8-9 months later, I need to pay them 4 full months of wages? And now pay 4 new full-time employees, simultaneously?

How is that anything but a crippling, unsurvivable business model? And number two, as a business owner, wouldn't such a thing make me wayyy less likely to want to be hiring women (obviously doesn't work with my example, but you know what I mean)?

The same amount of Parental leave should be provided regardless of gender identity.
To suggest otherwise is to downplay the role of non gestational parents in the life of a child.

No I agree, if we're talking parental leave, it needs to apply to both the mother and father.

Where I work you're allowed to use short-term disability after you've used up all your vacation time. And you can use this time regardless of whether you have given birth or adopted a child.

Course at the end of that you still used up all your vacation time. So heaven forbid that child, or you yourself, get sick. Nothing says fantastic job performance like making your employees work when they're ill.

I don't get any of that stuff, ever. The way it is now I get my yearly vacation time, which is no longer called "vacation time" for reasons I don't completely understand, but PTO. I am also allotted, I think, 5 paid sick leave days a year outside of this.

That's it, there's nothing else. There is "family leave" but that's not paid.

There's also research to suggest that it takes a man's career longer to bounce back after the use of family leave time then it does a woman. That's not okay either.

That's... odd.

Originally Posted by TurtleWA

If it happens in the US it will most likely be an insurance type payment system. Employees select various amounts to contribute into the parental leave system. Then when you need it your paid not your full working wages but a set percent (maybe 55%) of your yearly earnings. Distributed every week for so many weeks.

That would seem fair. I'd get behind that.

Originally Posted by BubblyShell22

And I did state in my policy that a rape victim doesn't have to keep the baby and can place it for adoption.

How kind of you.

I find it sad that people who are for abortion exist. All of you get mad when there's a terrorist attack, a shooting, or a natural disaster that kills people all of the time and you are always sad when a celebrity dies. But when it comes to an innocent baby who has no voice and no say in how they live, you support killing it for certain reasons.

Who the hell is killing babies? You mean zygotes and fertilized eggs? Because those aren't babies.

[ProphetofGanja]

Originally Posted by BubblyShell22

Well, excuse me for actually valuing human life which we all must do every day no matter what. And you once said you're against abortions so you are obviously a liar in that regard.

I don't know why you say people have to value human life, there's no inherent law of life that says people have to or that forces people to, but I agree that people should value human life. Although I think you're being remarkably naive about how you expect people to value human life.

Originally Posted by BubblyShell22

And abortion has nothing to do with gays. It has to do with respecting life. I don't believe in abortion just like I don't believe in the transgender lifestyle or bi-sexuality. As far as I'm concerned you are either gay or straight and that's it. We aren't meant to like both sexes and aren't designed that way. I'm fine with homosexuals and heterosexuals but bi-sexuals and transgenders are mentally ill.

I mean, you can concern yourself all you want, but that doesn't make you right. There are plenty of bisexual people out there who can attest to that. You claim that you accept homosexuals, so what is the issue with accepting that someone could be attracted to either sex? It just seems like a weird thing to get hung up on

Originally Posted by BubblyShell22

And I did state in my policy that a rape victim doesn't have to keep the baby and can place it for adoption. When anyone hears about adoption, they automatically just think of foster care, but in reality there are other options. There are adoption websites where people can choose who cares for their baby and even adoption centers now. You can choose to have an open adoption or a closed one and it really isn't that bad. I feel it's better to give a child a chance at life rather than just taking it away just because of how it was conceived since it's not the child's fault. And I also feel it's better to give parents who are unable to conceive the joy of having a child from someone else who wants to give it a good life and a good family.

Where do you think the children who are waiting to be adopted go? They largely go into foster care... which is sadly usually an underfunded system. Gone are the days of orphanages and children's homes. And there are many, many more children up for adoption, in foster care, than people willing to adopt. And then the people who are willing to adopt often don't want a "damaged" child, and unfortunately, the events that lead to a child being placed in foster care typically do something to them. They quite often come away with abandonment issues, attachment disorders, and/or other mental health issues.

You can bury your head in the sand all you want and pretend that you're advocating the more humane course of action by placing all of the children from the unwanted and unplanned pregnancies into foster care, telling them they'll be adopted "some day", but you're lying to yourself.

Originally Posted by BubblyShell22

I find it sad that people who are for abortion exist. All of you get mad when there's a terrorist attack, a shooting, or a natural disaster that kills people all of the time and you are always sad when a celebrity dies. But when it comes to an innocent baby who has no voice and no say in how they live, you support killing it for certain reasons. Honestly, anyone who is pro-choice is no better than a terrorist who bombs buildings or a shooter who kills people because of their own messed up vendetta.

It's hypocrisy at its finest and that's the saddest thing of all.

First of all it's not the same thing, the loss of life is always tragic but there's a huge difference between people going about their daily lives being struck down by natural disasters and preventing someone from being doomed to a lifetime of pain and suffering such as in cases where a fetus is found to have a terminal diagnosis of some kind, fetuses are not the same as people, and you are out of your element.

[Utrommaniac]

For someone who has made the reproductive decision to not have children, you sure are vocal about other people's reproductive decisions.

Pregnancy is hard. Extremely hard. It's physically, mentally, and financially taxing. And a lot of people can't commit to those burdens of pregnancy alone. Carrying to term and giving up a baby isn't going to help that person in the slightest. She still has to recover physically and mentally from it. She still has to deal with PPD. She still has to deal with all the side effects of giving birth. She still has to pay thousands of dollars for delivery. Pregnancy is not an experience a lot of people can afford and that's the most common reason why termination happens. It's a choice between paying the bills and keeping the home financially stable, or losing all of it for maternity care.

The majority of terminations happen for impoverished single black women who already have at least one child to care for. The cost of maintaining a second pregnancy alone would put her and her living child in danger. "She shouldn't have had sex" is not an answer, and even more, it's a slap in the face.

The solution to abortion is not making it illegal (because again, they tried that, and it ended very, very badly...warning for some graphic imagery as a result of an attempted self-termination), but ensuring enough financial stability so it's not an act of desparation to keep a roof with air conditioning and electricity over their heads.

Of course it's sad when a baby dies. It's sad when they have life-threatening conditions that end their lives too early. It's sad when a woman who wants a pregnancy has a spontaneous miscarriage (which has been treated as severely as abortion in many areas where it's illegal!). It's sad when a woman has to give up her child three months in because she can no longer handle every little strain it brings to her own life. It's sad when thousands of children grow up in foster care and never be adopted because they're not healthy white babies - as what is demanded by most prospective adopting parents - while there's a shortage of healthy white babies. But termination in early stages is a great deal more merciful than bringing a child into the world that will never be wanted, have emotionally fulfilling care, and have a permanent stable home. Are there aspects of it that is sad? Of course. A woman might want to carry on a pregnancy but find that it's impossible for her and her family. The embryo/fetus might have already died of natural causes and hadn't properly ejected. It might be doomed to a short life in agony because of severe deformities. It might have Trisomy 13. It might kill her. It might ruin her financially. The list of reasons why terminations happen is so much more than "rape, incest, or just not wanting a baby".

Not all terminations happen because a woman doesn't want to be pregnant. Many happen when she does, but finds that it is the only option she has for herself and her family. In many late-term terminations, for the very, very, very few that there are, especially when situations like deadly deformations (TRISOMY 13) happen or abrupt deaths, professionals will handle the situation like a birth for the sake of the parents' comfort, who may have been waiting for the baby and come up with heartbreak and disappointment. That includes the mother being able to hold it after it has died/while it's dying, to give her some sense of closure and at least a taste of what she had been wanting but was unable to have.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Utrom has hit the nail on the head quite forcefully. In fact I will add to it with some personal thoughts. If a woman is in an already unstable financial situation where she must rely on others for a home and other neccessities, and in spite of being in a healthy relationship/marriage has no income or privacy, no job and is already caring for someone ELSE'S kids as an unasked and unvolunteered "foster mom", does she even have the RIGHT to bring yet another mouth to feed into that situation, knowing it would only put further strain on the already tight resources of those on whom she depends? My answer is no. And it is exactly the choice I have had to make.

[ProphetofGanja]

Another thought:

I would push for the adoption of autobahn-like rules of conduct for our highways. Our highway infrastructure would undoubtedly need to be serviced extensively, but that would also give the country the opportunity to move away from the traffic light/intersection system and more towards traffic circles/roundabouts. I freaking hate sitting at red lights when there are no cars coming in the other direction, I'd much rather just loop around and continue on my way.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ProphetofGanja

Another thought:

I would push for the adoption of autobahn-like rules of conduct for our highways. Our highway infrastructure would undoubtedly need to be serviced extensively, but that would also give the country the opportunity to move away from the traffic light/intersection system and more towards traffic circles/roundabouts. I freaking hate sitting at red lights when there are no cars coming in the other direction, I'd much rather just loop around and continue on my way.

Agreed! And getting rid of "chickensh** tickets," speed/light cameras, all of that stuff. No more "Clip it or Ticket" campaigns, but rather, "Shake Your Ass!" campaigns. Pick up the pace! Let's go, let's move!

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Utrom has hit the nail on the head quite forcefully. In fact I will add to it with some personal thoughts. If a woman is in an already unstable financial situation where she must rely on others for a home and other neccessities, and in spite of being in a healthy relationship/marriage has no income or privacy, no job and is already caring for someone ELSE'S kids as an unasked and unvolunteered "foster mom", does she even have the RIGHT to bring yet another mouth to feed into that situation, knowing it would only put further strain on the already tight resources of those on whom she depends? My answer is no. And it is exactly the choice I have had to make.

I tend to agree with this.

[miru]

* Deal with PETA in the same way we'd deal with any other terrorists; make them unable to be considered a "charity" legally, and unable to use "there is no way to kill humanely" until they stop euthanizing animals.
* This goes double for the ALF. Complete crackdown.
* Obligate shift to sustainable energy sources for transport. Tax corporations for environment-harming practices.
* Bring back more forms of capital punishment, such as hanging, in order to scare criminals out of things.
* Turn Puerto Rico and Guam into states. Possibly do the other three as well.
* FINALLY tear down the borders. Too many lives have been lost over a disaster that was over a decade ago.
* Enforce wildlife protections. Have an invasive species extermination plan put into effort.
* Provide more funding to education.
* Re-legalize haggis, but put stringent standards on it.
* Loosen security so it doesn't feel oppressive.

* Set definitive rules for fan-works, and set up a reverse ACTA system to punish companies that threaten to sue fan products.
* Restore net neutrality.
* Prevent something like SOPA from ever happening again.
* Alter the copyright system so that copyright holders must actively push for the copyrights of works they used, before they fall into the public domain, while at the same time lowering the length it takes for works to fall into the public domain.
* Set up laws for lasting technology, to make sure consumers don't lose features when they upgrade.
* Force a transparency law for food production.

[Ninjinister]

Don't be a dick

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by miru

* Set definitive rules for fan-works, and set up a reverse ACTA system to punish companies that threaten to sue fan products.

Alter the copyright system so that copyright holders must actively push for the copyrights of works they used, before they fall into the public domain, while at the same time lowering the length it takes for works to fall into the public domain.

These two things seem oddly specific. What the heck are you into? Not casting shade, just genuinely curious.