Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 13, 2015 10:26:46 GMT -5
All of the things I rattled off may or may not fall under STD or FLMA (except divorce)- but I doubt any policy would give 100% pay for as long as someone might need - which is basically what the political stance is - that women should get 12 months of pay for birth. My stance is that we are being too specific by defining birth as something that should be compensated, and every single other disease - you are on your own, and good luck with that. Maybe I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing anyone arguing for 12 months paid at 100%.
Almost all those things you listed would qualify for STD, FMLA, & even LTD if they are ongoing problems. So I don't see the 'you are on your own, and good luck with that' with those.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Aug 13, 2015 10:31:39 GMT -5
As a woman with a PhD in a STEM field - I watch the pipeline bleed women every year, often from having children. I had 12 weeks; I would have liked 6 months. A 3 month old baby is just still too tiny to be sent to daycare IMO. They still need their mamas. I spent half the next year pumping and nodding off at work anyways because my child wasn't sleeping. Not to mention recovering from my emergency C-section. It would have been better to spend 3 more months getting rest and healing than to go back to work and to pretend to be productive. Luckily my spouse took 2 more months so my DD didn't go to daycare until 5 months. It seems to me babies really start being stronger, sleeping more, etc at 6 months. Why shouldn't we work with nature instead of fighting against it?? There are many conditions that cause sleep difficulties, change in hormones, change in brain chemistry, and many life choices, too. Why is pregnancy deserving of a year paid, but, say...cancer, depression, menopause, divorce, narcolepsy, back pain, care of aging parents, etc. does not? There IS still FMLA for many of those circumstances and long term disability (which you don't get for having children). But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else? It's not. It's merely another benefit. And I personally didn't suggest a year, I suggested 6 months.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 13, 2015 10:40:22 GMT -5
How much pay should an employer be mandated to pay their employees for not working when the employer had nothing to do with the employee not working? Zero. If they want to do it voluntarily that's up to them. using that logic, if I get into a car accident outside of work and need to stay in the hospital, that would be an unpaid absence.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 13, 2015 10:43:27 GMT -5
How much pay should an employer be mandated to pay their employees for not working when the employer had nothing to do with the employee not working? Zero. If they want to do it voluntarily that's up to them. using that logic, if I get into a car accident outside of work and need to stay in the hospital, that would be an unpaid absence. It would be where I work unless it's more than a week and STD kicks in. Let me add ... the STD I partially pay for.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 12:19:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 10:43:15 GMT -5
As far as I know, my job doesn't have any kind of special leave for new parents. We have vacation time and sick leave. The birth of a baby or adoption of a baby is covered under FMLA, and FMLA can cover you for 12 weeks out of a year, where you don't have to worry about losing your job. FMLA also covers serious or chronic medical conditions. It does not have anything to do with whether you get paid or not, you only get paid if you have sick leave or use your vacation time. I can't recall having ever seen anything where any of that changes in regard to pay if you have a baby.
I don't think I'd care if my job granted paid time off for new parents. If they're taking care of a newborn, or getting settled in with a recently adopted child, it's not exactly a vacation. That's a perk I don't care about missing out on if it means I don't have to raise another child. Nothing against children, I'm just done with that part of my life.
ETA: my job doesn't offer STD as a benefit. They consider the amount of leave we get to be generous enough. If you want STD you have to get it yourself.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 13, 2015 10:44:16 GMT -5
::But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else?::
Because someone is paying for that benefit. So if you get "a benefit" of $100, and in order to give you that benefit you're taking $100 away from me...then you're taking away from someone else. There are limited resources in this world, anytime you give a person one thing from a pooled resource, you're effectively taking that opportunity away from others.
Having kids is about the last thing we should give people paid time off for...it is 100% a choice. It's also not a choice we need to encourage people on.
I also think the argument of "pay me to do nothing, because otherwise I'll just be a poor employee" isn't exactly a rousing argument.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 13, 2015 10:46:02 GMT -5
How much pay should an employer be mandated to pay their employees for not working when the employer had nothing to do with the employee not working? Zero. If they want to do it voluntarily that's up to them. using that logic, if I get into a car accident outside of work and need to stay in the hospital, that would be an unpaid absence. Yes.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 13, 2015 10:48:04 GMT -5
::But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else?::
Because someone is paying for that benefit. So if you get "a benefit" of $100, and in order to give you that benefit you're taking $100 away from me...then you're taking away from someone else. There are limited resources in this world, anytime you give a person one thing from a pooled resource, you're effectively taking that opportunity away from others.
Having kids is about the last thing we should give people paid time off for...it is 100% a choice. It's also not a choice we need to encourage people on.
I also think the argument of "pay me to do nothing, because otherwise I'll just be a poor employee" isn't exactly a rousing argument. but we are ALL paying for that benefit - including the people using it!!! We also all pay for social security, medicaid, and FMLA leave (in NJ at least) yet we are not all using it. If your house isn't on fire or burgled, should you be able to stop paying the taxes that cover the salaries of firefighters or police officers?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 13, 2015 10:57:23 GMT -5
::But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else?::
Because someone is paying for that benefit. So if you get "a benefit" of $100, and in order to give you that benefit you're taking $100 away from me...then you're taking away from someone else. There are limited resources in this world, anytime you give a person one thing from a pooled resource, you're effectively taking that opportunity away from others.
Having kids is about the last thing we should give people paid time off for...it is 100% a choice. It's also not a choice we need to encourage people on.
I also think the argument of "pay me to do nothing, because otherwise I'll just be a poor employee" isn't exactly a rousing argument. but we are ALL paying for that benefit - including the people using it!!! We also all pay for social security, medicaid, and FMLA leave (in NJ at least) yet we are not all using it. If your house isn't on fire or burgled, should you be able to stop paying the taxes that cover the salaries of firefighters or police officers? Yes. I'm not in favor of most government bloat. I do have more tolerance for societal "insurance" for things like Medicaid, fire protection, etc (FMLA leave is unpaid here). I'm not opposed to companies paying for parental leave, I'm just opposed to the government mandating that companies must pay people for their choices...like having kids...or taking vacations...or sabbaticals, etc.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 13, 2015 11:04:43 GMT -5
I haven't read the entire thread but if my company was forced to give 6-12 months of paid maternity leave we would end up never hiring people of childbearing age. Essentially, the company would end up a good old boys club like it was 40 yrs ago. I would absolutely HATE to see that happen and I am about 95% certain that is the way it would go. We are a small association and we don't have the resources available to make this happen. We can't expect a small staff to pick-up the extra workload for that long and what if 2-3 women have kids at the same time. We would be in REAL trouble.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 13, 2015 11:32:12 GMT -5
I haven't read the entire thread but if my company was forced to give 6-12 months of paid maternity leave we would end up never hiring people of childbearing age. Essentially, the company would end up a good old boys club like it was 40 yrs ago. I would absolutely HATE to see that happen and I am about 95% certain that is the way it would go. We are a small association and we don't have the resources available to make this happen. We can't expect a small staff to pick-up the extra workload for that long and what if 2-3 women have kids at the same time. We would be in REAL trouble. There is no way it would be a blanket policy. It would either be some sort of govt funded program like in Canada or a policy that is limited to certain companies like FMLA.
Or what I think they should do is just extend the time a birth qualifies for STD - make it 12 weeks. Then companies can opt for STD insurance or not (just like they do now), but at least if they offer it, then it is worth a little more than it is now. And then extend FMLA for a birth to 26 weeks. A lot of women wouldn't use it. But, it least it is there & your job is covered should you choose to take a longer leave.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 13, 2015 11:42:45 GMT -5
I haven't read the entire thread but if my company was forced to give 6-12 months of paid maternity leave we would end up never hiring people of childbearing age. Essentially, the company would end up a good old boys club like it was 40 yrs ago. I would absolutely HATE to see that happen and I am about 95% certain that is the way it would go. We are a small association and we don't have the resources available to make this happen. We can't expect a small staff to pick-up the extra workload for that long and what if 2-3 women have kids at the same time. We would be in REAL trouble. There is no way it would be a blanket policy. It would either be some sort of govt funded program like in Canada or a policy that is limited to certain companies like FMLA.
Or what I think they should do is just extend the time a birth qualifies for STD - make it 12 weeks. Then companies can opt for STD insurance or not (just like they do now), but at least if they offer it, then it is worth a little more than it is now. And then extend FMLA for a birth to 26 weeks. A lot of women wouldn't use it. But, it least it is there & your job is covered should you choose to take a longer leave.
That's the thing, even middle and upper class people "can't afford" to take the time off. You hear it all the time, "I had to come back at 8 weeks because I needed the check". If FMLA is extended to 26 weeks unpaid, I really doubt many people would even utilize it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 12:19:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 11:47:06 GMT -5
I haven't read the entire thread but if my company was forced to give 6-12 months of paid maternity leave we would end up never hiring people of childbearing age. Essentially, the company would end up a good old boys club like it was 40 yrs ago. I would absolutely HATE to see that happen and I am about 95% certain that is the way it would go. We are a small association and we don't have the resources available to make this happen. We can't expect a small staff to pick-up the extra workload for that long and what if 2-3 women have kids at the same time. We would be in REAL trouble. There is no way it would be a blanket policy. It would either be some sort of govt funded program like in Canada or a policy that is limited to certain companies like FMLA.
Or what I think they should do is just extend the time a birth qualifies for STD - make it 12 weeks. Then companies can opt for STD insurance or not (just like they do now), but at least if they offer it, then it is worth a little more than it is now. And then extend FMLA for a birth to 26 weeks. A lot of women wouldn't use it. But, it least it is there & your job is covered should you choose to take a longer leave.
While I don't have a problem with new parents getting paid leave at my job, I would not like FMLA being extended to 6 months, only for giving birth. Having a job to come back to whether you've been recovering from a serious illness or have a new baby is a bigger deal to me than whether/how you get paid while you're out. I think the length of time your job is protected should be the same for everybody that is covered under FMLA for whatever reason.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2015 11:50:39 GMT -5
I haven't read the entire thread but if my company was forced to give 6-12 months of paid maternity leave we would end up never hiring people of childbearing age. Essentially, the company would end up a good old boys club like it was 40 yrs ago. I would absolutely HATE to see that happen and I am about 95% certain that is the way it would go. We are a small association and we don't have the resources available to make this happen. We can't expect a small staff to pick-up the extra workload for that long and what if 2-3 women have kids at the same time. We would be in REAL trouble. Why do you suppose that doesn't happen in other countries with generous maternity leaves?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 12:19:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 11:56:59 GMT -5
How much pay should an employer be mandated to pay their employees for not working when the employer had nothing to do with the employee not working? Zero. If they want to do it voluntarily that's up to them. In my experience, most employers top up the mat leave amount given by the gov't which is 65% of wages.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 13, 2015 12:10:58 GMT -5
But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else? It's not. It's merely another benefit. And I personally didn't suggest a year, I suggested 6 months.As you are arguing this benefit for women who have had children (which you posted due to the lack of sleep, hormones, pumping/breastfeeding) then you're not quite right. Women only comprise ~50% of the population. If 75% do have children (and I don't think that the number is that high of child bearing women these days), the real number is 37.5%. According to this data from 2012, only about 59% of child bearing women aged 15-50 have children (p.3 top line all women). 41% do not. www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-575.pdf
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 13, 2015 12:25:15 GMT -5
I haven't read the entire thread but if my company was forced to give 6-12 months of paid maternity leave we would end up never hiring people of childbearing age. Essentially, the company would end up a good old boys club like it was 40 yrs ago. I would absolutely HATE to see that happen and I am about 95% certain that is the way it would go. We are a small association and we don't have the resources available to make this happen. We can't expect a small staff to pick-up the extra workload for that long and what if 2-3 women have kids at the same time. We would be in REAL trouble. Why do you suppose that doesn't happen in other countries with generous maternity leaves? Because in most cases the government pays for it, not the company.
But the reality is, it does happen. It happens here in the US even now, not because of paid maternity, but because people don't want to be without employees that long (Just look at FMLA, it doesn't apply to small companies for exactly this reason).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 12:19:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 12:31:37 GMT -5
But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else? It's not. It's merely another benefit. And I personally didn't suggest a year, I suggested 6 months.As you are arguing this benefit for women who have had children (which you posted due to the lack of sleep, hormones, pumping/breastfeeding) then you're not quite right. Women only comprise ~50% of the population. If 75% do have children (and I don't think that the number is that high of child bearing women these days), the real number is 37.5%. According to this data from 2012, only about 59% of child bearing women aged 15-50 have children (p.3 top line all women). 41% do not. www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-575.pdf I took "people" to mean men and women. I thought we were talking about leave for both parents caring for the child, but I haven't been reading closely, so I could be wrong.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2015 12:42:57 GMT -5
There is no way it would be a blanket policy. It would either be some sort of govt funded program like in Canada or a policy that is limited to certain companies like FMLA.
Or what I think they should do is just extend the time a birth qualifies for STD - make it 12 weeks. Then companies can opt for STD insurance or not (just like they do now), but at least if they offer it, then it is worth a little more than it is now. And then extend FMLA for a birth to 26 weeks. A lot of women wouldn't use it. But, it least it is there & your job is covered should you choose to take a longer leave.
That's the thing, even middle and upper class people "can't afford" to take the time off. You hear it all the time, "I had to come back at 8 weeks because I needed the check". If FMLA is extended to 26 weeks unpaid, I really doubt many people would even utilize it. I was only 27 when I had my first and I was able to afford to take an extended leave. I made sure of it before I got pregnant. If you can't afford to take unpaid leave perhaps you aren't ready to take on the financial challenges of being a parent
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 13, 2015 12:49:54 GMT -5
There is no way it would be a blanket policy. It would either be some sort of govt funded program like in Canada or a policy that is limited to certain companies like FMLA.
Or what I think they should do is just extend the time a birth qualifies for STD - make it 12 weeks. Then companies can opt for STD insurance or not (just like they do now), but at least if they offer it, then it is worth a little more than it is now. And then extend FMLA for a birth to 26 weeks. A lot of women wouldn't use it. But, it least it is there & your job is covered should you choose to take a longer leave.
That's the thing, even middle and upper class people "can't afford" to take the time off. You hear it all the time, "I had to come back at 8 weeks because I needed the check". If FMLA is extended to 26 weeks unpaid, I really doubt many people would even utilize it. Which is why you extend the STD to 12 weeks. Then if you want more than that, it is on you to figure out. I think there should be some benefit to planning ahead. Yes, a lot of women wouldn't use it. A lot of women don't take 12 weeks now for the same reason. With this, they could at least take the 12 & take more if they plan ahead.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 13, 2015 12:53:06 GMT -5
There is no way it would be a blanket policy. It would either be some sort of govt funded program like in Canada or a policy that is limited to certain companies like FMLA.
Or what I think they should do is just extend the time a birth qualifies for STD - make it 12 weeks. Then companies can opt for STD insurance or not (just like they do now), but at least if they offer it, then it is worth a little more than it is now. And then extend FMLA for a birth to 26 weeks. A lot of women wouldn't use it. But, it least it is there & your job is covered should you choose to take a longer leave.
While I don't have a problem with new parents getting paid leave at my job, I would not like FMLA being extended to 6 months, only for giving birth. Having a job to come back to whether you've been recovering from a serious illness or have a new baby is a bigger deal to me than whether/how you get paid while you're out. I think the length of time your job is protected should be the same for everybody that is covered under FMLA for whatever reason. Then change if for everyone. The reason I didn't suggest this is because births typically don't happen yearly & most women limit their lifetime number. Whereas other issues, like depression or a sick child could be ongoing for years. It would become much more onerous for a company to have an employee take 6 months off every year than to have an employee take 6 months 2-3 times with a couple year spacing between events.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 13, 2015 12:56:50 GMT -5
That's the thing, even middle and upper class people "can't afford" to take the time off. You hear it all the time, "I had to come back at 8 weeks because I needed the check". If FMLA is extended to 26 weeks unpaid, I really doubt many people would even utilize it. I was only 27 when I had my first and I was able to afford to take an extended leave. I made sure of it before I got pregnant. If you can't afford to take unpaid leave perhaps you aren't ready to take on the financial challenges of being a parent Yes, but my point is addition unpaid leave wouldn't effect companies much because it would rarely be used.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 12:19:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 12:57:58 GMT -5
I didn't think about it that way, and that does make sense. I still wouldn't like it though.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 13, 2015 12:58:24 GMT -5
::Then change if for everyone.::
Why change FMLA for everyone? Let's just give everyone unlimited time off for their decisions. No matter what decisions or unexpected circumstances lead you to want to take time off, you get it off.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2015 12:59:45 GMT -5
I giggle every time I see one of you post STD...as a newly single woman, the one thing I DONT want is an STD:-p
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 13, 2015 13:02:10 GMT -5
But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else? It's not. It's merely another benefit. And I personally didn't suggest a year, I suggested 6 months.As you are arguing this benefit for women who have had children (which you posted due to the lack of sleep, hormones, pumping/breastfeeding) then you're not quite right. Women only comprise ~50% of the population. If 75% do have children (and I don't think that the number is that high of child bearing women these days), the real number is 37.5%. According to this data from 2012, only about 59% of child bearing women aged 15-50 have children (p.3 top line all women). 41% do not. www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-575.pdf I took "people" to mean men and women. I thought we were talking about leave for both parents caring for the child, but I haven't been reading closely, so I could be wrong. Normally, I'd agree but HoneyBBQ posted earlier that SHE thought 6 months was more adequate for this because of HER issues (lack of sleep, hormones, pumping/breastfeeding, etc.) which are mostly not applicable 50% of the population.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 12:19:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 13:04:14 GMT -5
I giggle every time I see one of you post STD...as a newly single woman, the one thing I DONT want is an STD:-p Lol. I had to get use to it meaning Short Term Disability too.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 13, 2015 13:06:14 GMT -5
Can we get a dislike button here?
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 13, 2015 13:07:35 GMT -5
But 75% (or so) of people have children. 75% of the population do not get cancer or have narcolepsy. Why is having a benefit available seen as taking away from someone else? It's not. It's merely another benefit. And I personally didn't suggest a year, I suggested 6 months.As you are arguing this benefit for women who have had children (which you posted due to the lack of sleep, hormones, pumping/breastfeeding) then you're not quite right. Women only comprise ~50% of the population. If 75% do have children (and I don't think that the number is that high of child bearing women these days), the real number is 37.5%. According to this data from 2012, only about 59% of child bearing women aged 15-50 have children (p.3 top line all women). 41% do not. www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-575.pdf Ahh, but 100% of us have been children. (with an extended observation, that, if this is beneficial for children, longer maternity leaves will benefit 100% of the population within a few generations, at most.)
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,874
Member is Online
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Aug 13, 2015 13:28:29 GMT -5
The heroin addict probably got pregnant at the peak of her fertility, which is around 16-20. The father was most likely around the same age, so he was at the peak of his fertility too. I'm going to go not very far out on a limb whatsoever and guess that your friends struggling to conceive are at least a decade past that. Possibly closer to two. Waiting has consequences. Fertility issues are the big one. Our economy is structured such that you can't really afford children until sometime after 30, in most cases. College, establishing yourself in your career, saving up a bit of money, etc. all takes a while. That's all fine and good, but biologically we're designed to reproduce much earlier. If we encourage everyone to wait until they're YM 'ready' to have kids our birth rate would drop to almost nothing. Too many people would get all their ducks in a row only to find out they missed their window. Waiting does have issues. It's all a trade off. Heroin addict was at least 30 when she got pregnant. Baby is 2 months old now and mom is 31.
|
|