ZPGZ has stated in other threads that it is inappropriate to raise a child with love, or to love a child, because that does them harm. Loving a child, according to her, makes them spoiled and weak, and does the child a disservice.
Discussing this issue, or really, any issue with her, is a complete waste of time.
Because she is insane.
This is the key fact I keep forgetting :smack:
Wow. Not only is everyone outside her ethnic group out to get her, but any form of familial affection is verboten. What a sad, frightened, lonely life ZPGZ must lead.
That’s the way it worked for me, too - I gave my doctor’s office the papers and the deadline by which they were required at the STD company and they were approved and when I had the baby, I was pre-approved for 6 weeks of STD leave. Part of it is that it’s easier to prove having a baby than it is to prove that certain other injuries or illnesses prevent you from working (keep in mind, too, that illnesses like cancer might fall under long-term disability as opposed to short-term, dependent upon your prognosis). Even though most people don’t abuse STD, it’s much easier to abuse an STD policy for what might be considered a “grey-area” injury than for a birth. After all, after you have a baby, you have, well, a baby. And the amount of time doctors have set for recovering from a standard uncomplicated vaginal birth is widely accepted as a standard. It’s much harder to do something like that with, for example, a car accident injury.
Let’s say you get in a car accident severe enough to sprain something or give you whiplash - severe enough you really don’t feel like you can work. So you go to your doctor, who adds information on your condition to your medical file about the level of pain you’re feeling, the drugs you’re taking for the pain and any necessary X-rays. The STD company has a case worker who assesses those files and agrees or disagrees on the “validity” of the condition. Some case workers are more apt to pass cases more quickly than others, especially if there’s potentially some question about the filers ability to work. Granted, some stranger sitting in an office somewhere shouldn’t be able to tell someone else, “Nope - you say you’re in a lot of pain. But really you’re not.” But that’s a lot harder to quantify than a birth. You had a baby or you didn’t. You had it vaginally or by C-section. You had complications or you didn’t. Most contingencies for birth have standardized amounts of time doctors have given for recovery; many injuries and illnesses don’t.
Truthfully, I don’t agree with considering birth a disability. However, I do think that women don’t get enough time to take care of their babies before going back to work. I’m not saying women should have that time paid for, but having FMLA extend six or more months would be ideal.
In my case, in two states, I was given the run around for issues that had been created on the job, were fully documented, my immediate supervisor knew of and agreed that I needed time off to heal and I had all of the necessary paperwork from the doctors. In the case of the WA disability, which took six months to approve during which I got much worse, two women found they were pregnant and were approved for paid leave with no hassle. One of them ended up with complications and had to do bed rest towards the end and of course that was approved right away. All of this for what is essentially a self inflicted disability…
Oh, in my case I was working for insurance companies, so only dealt with HR.
The thing is, a woman chooses to have and keep a baby, and for some reason the companies I worked for were supposed to give her her full salary while she stayed home and took care of the baby. Ignoring all the trouble I had to get medical leave, why is it that a woman is paid to do something she feels like doing, but anything a man or a woman who doesn’t have kids wants to do for six months is not only not paid for, that person is likely to lose their job? Just because having babies is popular?
I guess I wouldn’t have as much trouble with FMLA going out to six months, but that too ends up costing the companies money, and it’s a benefit that not everyone gets to use.
Why six months? Is the baby more capable of going into daycare then?
Fertility isn’t a disease, but managing fertility is an important aspect of preventative healthcare for both women and the children that they do birth. This is especially true given that pregnancy represents both a substantial health risk and a major interruption to a woman’s life. Avoiding unwanted pregnancy, like avoiding illness, is an important component of maintaining one’s health and one’s way of life.
Also, we know that the health of a child’s mother prior to becoming pregnant has an impact on the health outcomes of children not just at birth, but throughout their lives. Yet at least half (if not more) of pregnancies are not planned. When women are able to actively plan pregnancies and work to ensure that they’re as healthy as possible before conception they have healthier children. That goal isn’t possible without access to reliable contraception.
Additionally, pregnancy spacing – that is, having sufficient time between pregnancies – is also now proving to be especially important for the health of the mother and all of her subsequently born children. Once again, reliable contraception is inherently necessary to meet the goal of maximizing health outcomes.
That becoming pregnant is a “natural” process doesn’t mean that indiscriminate pregnancy is beneficial to anyone involved.
The health aspects of carefully prepared for and appropriately spaced pregnancies get lost in the furor of those who object to women being able to control this particular aspect of their lives on a cultural level, typically from some religious standpoint that women are rejecting their “nature” or some mandatory blessing of God, neither of which have anything to do with the actual medical science involved in the matter.
You’re awesome dude. But, I’m feeling you’re holding back on what you really really mean. Please, elaborate.
Oh, I don’t think you’re heartless–just retarded.
See what I mean?
There’s a very wide range of coverage for fertility treatments across health plans. Some plans offer nothing at all, while others will cover multiple attempts and/or tens of thousands of dollars in treatment, as some combination of specific procedures and prescription drugs.
I’ll chip in!
I know that STD means Short-Term Disability (to be contrasted with LTD), but I’m still going to read it as Sexually Transmitted Disease all through this post and giggle quietly to myself. (Especially amusing in the context of pregnancy.)
Tough shit. Benefits don’t discriminate against whether or not someone was responsible for their own condition. Obesity, diabetes, cancer from tobacco, drug overdose, slit wrists from a suicide attempt: these are all covered by insurance and disability.
Do you want society to continue after you? Like, all civilization? Want doctors to take care of you when you’re old, farmers to raise crops, cashiers to sell the food, police to keep you from being robbed or murdered in your sleep, government to keep your disability checks coming in? Guess what, curly: it’s of *direct benefit to you *for other people to keep having babies.
Oh, no. *Please *don’t encourage her.
Love is fine, but unnecessary and frankly overrated. Hell, my parents “loved” me, but love doesn’t stop someone who is an immature asshole from screwing up and making other peoples’ lives hell. And when love prevents the caregivers from socializing the child to be a responsible adult it’s another form of neglect. Seriously, Kolga, do you comprehend any world outside of the Cupcake land of the American middle class?
That is only true if those babies grow up to be productive ciitizens. Otherswise, those babies grow up to be destructive to our society and we have to waste resources locking them up or putting them down. What should be encouraged is making good decisions about if and when a person produces a child. A baby in and of it self is only raw material for a potential citizen and contributes less to society than a domestic animal at birth.
Well, one can hardly blame them for stopping.
Hence the birth control and the abuse counseling…correct?
This is one of the few sensible things I’ve seen you post.
Clearly, what we need is some way to determine whose childbearing should be subsidized–or, even better, who should be allowed to breed at all! And with whom! I see *no possible way *for this to end badly.
What’s the opposite of QFT?
The precogs will figure it out.
I’d go with QFR[etardedness]. Or QFS[tupidity] if you’re one of those people who has an objection to euphemism treadmills.
I would say, “Holy shit are you crazy,” but since that’s already been posted in this thread about 8 times, I guess you need to find another way.
(bolding mine) Exhibit A for the argument that you are insane.
Sounds like you have some issues with your parents.
The rest of your quote is Exhibit B that you are insane.
What if the baby is a werewolf?
Oh shit, son. You went full on werewolf.