Is Planned Hamburger more important than the entire good of America?

[MakeItRain]

So this all started with people getting on yard dog for his plan to provide paid maternity leave (really odd stance for yard dog to take btw). I could be wrong but to me this spiraled from that to essentially all maternity leave is wrong. sys it seems at the point I quoted above you went from hypothetically addressing yard dogs plan to arguing against maternity leave, period.

Now going back through these last two pages it seems to me there are still a couple of posters who thinks we have mandated paid maternity leave, if you aren't one of those people, I apologize. However to contend that workers not on maternity leave pay some price for someone on maternity leave is ridiculous at best.

great, now we are all on the same page.  btw, california, where i live and work, does have a law providing some % of paid parental leave, paid out of some sort of tax (i think a payroll tax of some sort, not positive).  but that's neither here nor there.

let's deal with your last contention.  i have a hard time following your logic.  apparently you believe that parental leave comes entirely out of an employers' profits/revenue as a zero sum game?  that there is no compensatory effect on employee wages and benefits overall?  that is a very strange position to take, and as far as i am aware it is one that is entirely unsupported by either economic theory or empirical evidence.

There are three states that offer paid maternity leave (it's actually family health leave) California, Washington, and New Jersey. In California it is actually an insurance plan that the employee has to buy into, it isn't the government giving people money to have babies.

What evidence is there that unpaid or frankly paid for that matter maternity have any effect on the wages of others? Considering that this is a matter of a decision of a private employer I'm not sure how you can speak definitively on the matter either. It feels like you are applying your standard to some woman making $11/hour making rivets, these people aren't getting paid maternity leave. I'm willing to bet that companies offering paid maternity hire specialized, highly skilled employees at high salaries and they offer the paid maternity leave as a means to keep the skilled workers around, and to keep morale and productivity high in a way that has no noticeable effect to the bottom line of the company and not at the expense of the small percentage of their adult workforce that make the choice not to reproduce, adopt, or have an ill parent they need to care for.

[sys]

I don't have a problem with saying I am "wimping out" or not being a "real man" by thinking women are more qualified to make policy decisions regarding abortion.

only gunowners should make policy decisions on gun ownership.

[MakeItRain]

Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.

This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?

[michigancat]

I don't have a problem with saying I am "wimping out" or not being a "real man" by thinking women are more qualified to make policy decisions regarding abortion.

only gunowners should make policy decisions on gun ownership.

I think abortion is a little more unique and complicated.

[michigancat]

Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.

This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?

Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I don't have a problem with saying I am "wimping out" or not being a "real man" by thinking women are more qualified to make policy decisions regarding abortion.

Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.

Yes, and I also explained why that's a stupid talking point.

[Mrs. Gooch]

I don't have a problem with saying I am "wimping out" or not being a "real man" by thinking women are more qualified to make policy decisions regarding abortion.

only gunowners should make policy decisions on gun ownership.

Everyone is a potential gun owner (except ex-cons, I guess, but they can't vote anyway can they?)

[MakeItRain]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abortion-bills-planned-parenthood-video_55fc21d1e4b08820d9184787

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/index.html

[sys]

There are three states that offer paid maternity leave (it's actually family health leave) California, Washington, and New Jersey. In California it is actually an insurance plan that the employee has to buy into, it isn't the government giving people money to have babies.

participation in csdi is mandatory.  it is a government sponsored, organized and operated entity that uses the power of the state to mandate that employees pay money into a pool that is then distributed to state residents according to the requirements outlined by state law.

you (and california) can call it insurance if you like, the supreme court ruled that a mandatory federal "insurance" law was in fact a tax.  because it is.

[sys]

Everyone is a potential gun owner.

are they?  is gun ownership also now something the state can mandate?

[sys]

I think abortion is a little more unique and complicated.

do you consider yourself less intellectually qualified to analyze unique and complicated issues than are women?  i thought you were opting out of the issue because you felt it was unfair of you to intrude because you would not and could not be as impacted by ramifications of the decision, not because you thought you were to stupid to understand the issue.

[MakeItRain]

So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time.  Abortion is legal, so give up."

I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.

I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?

I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.

My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice.  I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.

But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.

This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?

Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.

That, and the full length undercover vids are made available online, which is more than the media would ever provide for any if its video productions. It is an extremely stupid talking point peddled by - who else? - the media. Yes, it's been explained. See my halftime scorecard of stupid arguments around page 4.

[michigancat]

I think abortion is a little more unique and complicated.

do you consider yourself less intellectually qualified to analyze unique and complicated issues than are women?  i thought you were opting out of the issue because you felt it was unfair of you to intrude because you would not and could not be as impacted by ramifications of the decision, not because you thought you were to stupid to understand the issue.

I choose to opt put because I am basically unaffected.

(Granted, I am basically unaffected by gun laws, too.)

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time.  Abortion is legal, so give up."

I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.

I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?

I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.

My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice.  I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.

But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.

I did a word search of the constitution for "privacy" and "abortion." My search function must not be working right. It did find a pretty clear provision on the right to bear arms, though.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Are you pro life, sys?

[star seed 7]

Media 

[sys]

What evidence is there that unpaid or frankly paid for that matter maternity have any effect on the wages of others?

i'll google for this and get back to you.  it may be a while, though.

It feels like you are applying your standard to some woman making $11/hour making rivets, these people aren't getting paid maternity leave. I'm willing to bet that companies offering paid maternity hire specialized, highly skilled employees at high salaries and they offer the paid maternity leave as a means to keep the skilled workers around, and to keep morale and productivity high in a way that has no noticeable effect to the bottom line of the company and not at the expense of the small percentage of their adult workforce that make the choice not to reproduce, adopt, or have an ill parent they need to care for.

you're right, of course, that in the united states most employers that offer paid parental leave offer fairly high mean compensation to employees.  your contention that it does not come at the expense of total employee compensation does not follow.  if labor has any power (and highly skilled, highly specialized labor usually has much greater power than does less skilled labor, then they should demand increasing percentages of revenues, up to the point at which capital can replace them with equally skilled alternatives.  whether labor demands and receives that compensation in the form of salary or benefits (leaving tax considerations aside) should be immaterial.  if benefits are offered to all employees, but are only used by a subset of those employees, then those employees that do not use that benefit are subsidizing those employees that do.

[sys]

(Granted, I am basically unaffected by gun laws, too.)

that's all i was trying to point out.

[sys]

Are you pro life, sys?

no.

[MakeItRain]

So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time.  Abortion is legal, so give up."

I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.

I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?

I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.

My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice.  I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.

But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.

I did a word search of the constitution for "privacy" and "abortion." My search function must not be working right. It did find a pretty clear provision on the right to bear arms, though.

I don't think I was the person to frame this conversation in constitutional terms, bub. I just addressed the point.

[mocat]

Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.

This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?

Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.

That, and the full length undercover vids are made available online, which is more than the media would ever provide for any if its video productions. It is an extremely stupid talking point peddled by - who else? - the media. Yes, it's been explained. See my halftime scorecard of stupid arguments around page 4.

"it's not edited/doctored at all! and even if it is, that's what 'the media' does all the time anyway!"

[michigancat]

(Granted, I am basically unaffected by gun laws, too.)

that's all i was trying to point out.

Additionally, the impact a complete ban on guns would have on the lives of gun owners is basically nothing compared to the impact a ban on abortion would have on the lives of women who want an abortion.

[sys]

the impact a complete ban on guns would have on the lives of gun owners is basically nothing compared to the impact a ban on abortion would have on the lives of women who want an abortion.

as a non-gunowner, i don't think you understand the unique and complicated impact gun ownership has on gunowners and persons that want to own guns.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.

This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?

Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.

That, and the full length undercover vids are made available online, which is more than the media would ever provide for any if its video productions. It is an extremely stupid talking point peddled by - who else? - the media. Yes, it's been explained. See my halftime scorecard of stupid arguments around page 4.

"it's not edited/doctored at all! and even if it is, that's what 'the media' does all the time anyway!"

Did I ever say it wasn't edited? Of course they're edited! That's what happens when you take hours and hours of video and have to cut it down to something people will actually watch. The full videos are also produced, which is better than the media ever does. People can decide for themselves whether it has been edited in a misleading way.