[jobposter1234]

I'm sure it's not shameful. It might bug you, but I don't see it as something worthy of shame.

I do not have kids, do not plan to have kids, so I'm not sure why I should pay for someone else's decisions to create life. Whenever someone goes on family leave, other people who were not involved with that decision have to pick up the slack.

Now, maybe if I could take paid (or unpaid) leave-of-my-discretion as an alternative, I'd be okay with it. Otherwise, it feels like federal level discrimination against unmarried, child-less, individuals.

[jahewson]

Over your childhood you received plenty of money from the previous generation in the form of schooling, subsidies or tax breaks for your parents, publicly funded resources, etc. The assumption is that you'll pay it back over your lifetime so that the next generation has access to the same resources which you did. I'd suggest starting your quest for fairness by paying back this money, because by your own standard you're freeloading.

Welfare is ultimately an insurance scheme and the idea of getting your money back is as silly as getting your money back on your car insurance because you never crashed it. You're human and on average you're ~50% female and will eventually have children. Maybe if you volunteer for a vivisection then you can have a lower premium, but you're a member of the group whether you like it or not.

There's really no way to know who will and won't have children, ask a man under 20 if they want kids and you'll probably get 50% "no". Yet some 98% of them will have children. Somebody who has had a vivisection can easily have it reversed and somebody who is infertile may yet be treated my some future medical technique. From an insurance perspective everybody "may" have children and so needs to pay into the insurance scheme.

[jobposter1234]

It's one thing for an insurance company to operate in that manner, it's another for the government to do so.

People have a choice whether to procreate. I should either be allowed to participate in that choice, or be removed from the financial consequences.

[jahewson]

The government has to operate like any other insurance company, otherwise it will become bankrupt. Because it's impossible to gurantee that any straight health person will never have children, i.e you must be a member of the group. Much like car insurance, where you can't promise to never crash your car - you can have a lower premium for not crashing but you can't have no insurance. These are the simple financial facts of insurance.

While individuals do have a choice of whether to procreate (and it's not always a choice), society as a whole does not. Without procreation the economy and society would quickly collapse and the human race would eventually come to and end. So there's tremendous societal benefit to procreation and it should be supported by any government which society chooses to put in place. What you're suggesting would insentivize large numbers of people to not have any children, which is harmful to society and the wider economy. Indeed, without parents, you yourself would not exist.

A world in which you don't have to incur costs for others's children, is a world in which the benefits of those children should arguably be denied to you: no pension, lesser pay because you can't sell to children (or adults once those children are grown up), expensive services because you won't be allowed to use young cheap labor, no universities, larger tax and medical burdens as your own generation becomes older and more sickly, no hip young music or art, no interactions with people more than 25 years younger, no younger workers at your company as it grows, no technologies invented by or provided by those children in their adulthood, etc. Since you didn't contribute to raising the children, it's only fair that you don't get to reap the rewards, right?

The fact is that as a member of society and our economy, you derive a huge financial benefit from other's children which is inescapable. No man is an island.

[emodendroket]

And while we're at it, I'm not currently ill, so why should I have to pay for disability benefits for others? I'm not old, so why should I have to pay for Social Security?

[ryanx435]

you are probably being sarcastic, but as someone in their late 20s, I do not believe I will every get a social security payout. either the age requirements will keep getting pushed back as people live longer or the whole program will be abolished by the time I qualify.

I don't think I should pay into a system that I will never receive benefit from.

[dragonwriter]

> but as someone in their late 20s, I do not believe I will every get a social security payout.

This belief does not seem to be well justified.

> either the age requirements will keep getting pushed back as people live longer

"Keep"? They've been pushed back once in the history of the program.

[michaelchisari]

> I don't think I should pay into a system that I will never receive benefit from.

What do you propose the elderly living off of social security should do instead?

[jobposter1234]

Keep voting as a bloc and hope the music doesn't stop during their lifetime?

[ryanx435]

honestly, it's not my problem and I don't care what they do as long as I don't get stuck with the bill.

[jobposter1234]

While I know you are being sarcastic, I have a serious question: do you believe that choice should enter the equation?

No choice in getting old, or ill, or injured. But people (Americans) sure have a choice in getting pregnant.

[Retra]

No, they don't. Some people have to get pregnant or humanity collapses. If you think that is an acceptable outcome, then your moral compass is so far off that your opinion wouldn't merit any respect.

[jobposter1234]

Holy hyperbole, Batman! When did we go from my original statement, "I'm sure it's not shameful. It might bug you, but I don't see it as something worthy of shame" into the utter annihilation of humanity, and me as a bad person for wanting that?

It's kind of weird that humanity has managed to procreate without extended, government-funded maternity leave up to this point, isn't it?

(I'd also like to mention this discussion is scoped to US Governmental legislation, NOT the debate over humanity's continued existence.)

My original point was that it's not shameful to not provide this entitlement. Somehow we managed to go completely off the rails into zero-population Armageddon.

I would also ask that you tone down the rhetoric, personal attacks, and broad generalizations for the sake of civility.

[fsloth]

"It's kind of weird that humanity has managed to procreate without extended, government-funded maternity leave up to this point, isn't it?"

Effectively without supported maternal leave, men have a financial leverage over women. One might find this problematic or not, depending on political inclinations. Personally I prefer a society that attempts to balance out this leverage.

[Retra]

I wasn't responding to your original point, but to the comment I actually responded to. Reproduction is not a choice if some of us must do it.

Like, I don't have to drink water, I can just eat meat and get my water from that. But it would be absurd to suggest that "drinking water is a choice" because there are alternatives that I could personally take.

This is a Hobson's Choice: a choice between one option. You could wrangle that kind of argument into justification for anything! Slavery: "You chose to be a slave because you didn't run away." Rape: "You chose to get raped because you didn't stay inside." Pregnancy: "You chose to get pregnant because nobody actively forced you to have a baby."

Never-mind any notion of practicality. Forget about the fact that these things literally need to happen. It's a choice because you don't agree with the politics.

[jobposter1234]

I feel you are collapsing societal-scope with individual-scope.

Individuals choose whether or not to get pregnant when a man ejaculates inside a woman without protection. If you wish to do that, and bear the fetus to term, I do not wish to pay for your decision.

Individuals should bear the burden of their own decisions, not me.

[Pinatubo]

I'll give you your paid leave, as long as you don't get to draw on the social benefits my kids will be paying for when you are retired.

[wcummings]

Immigration is becoming the biggest driver of population growth, an aging population is not a serious concern.