LordZuko;c-10115830 said:
You introduced the argument of high position women needing to breed so you produce the numbers to back up your assertion.
I only suggested that successful people seemed like a better choice for the gene pool. You're the one that claimed a weak correlation. That's a statistical argument, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
LordZuko;c-10115833 said:
So a mother can fart some kids out her puss but asking her to personally see to the development of her children is doing too much? Whose responsibility is it then? The state? Because they do such a good job now?
If she isn't fit to teach her own children then she probably shouldn't have them. Honestly we demand more responsibility from dog owners.
That's a stupid argument. If that's the case, why do we even have schools. Why don't parents just teach their kids everything at home? As a parent, you do have a part to play in your child's educational development no matter where you send them. Please explain to me how a parent earning the money to send their child to an early learning center is less responsible than trying to teach themselves.
LordZuko;c-10115839 said:
The benefits of maternity leave are attributes of a dying era, the industrial age. We are no longer in it. Productivity is not causality of human labor any longer
In addition to the overpopulation of the human species, a woman having a child is no longer a benefit to society. In fact it is more probable that her spawn will be a further drain on the system. Her decision to breed is personal and self serving and it should not come at the cost of company productivity.
This is a stupider argument. If everyone thought this way, the species would die out in a generation. Overpopulation is one thing, but to suggest that having children in general is not a benefit to society is...I don't even know man. You're getting pretty far gone with this shit.