(May 14, 2013 at 8:31 pm)mo66 Wrote: There's a biological reason; a mother naturally suckles the child whereas fathers do not have something similar.
And here's a modern medical marvel what eliminates this: Baby formula.
Quote:Also, the baby is born out of the mother, not the father, so after carrying the baby 9 months, going through difficulty in terms of providing the correct food intake etc. and then giving birth to the child only to spend a couple of months with him/her? I don't think so. the mother should get a full year at least.
Correct food intake... chocolate pickled cucumbers dipped in ketchup. Maybe I'm missing something here.
You carry the thing for 9 months, and you get a year off? PAID? Fuck yeah, I'd get pregnant every chance I could get. And you want to give me MORE paid time off?
If I got a couple of days off for every serious difficulty I've ever had to go through, and got a week for every strenuous physical task with some life-threatening elements to it I've ever survived... I should at least have 40 years of paid time off of work by now
Quote:The father doesn't do any of that, why the hell should they get time off? They didn't carry the baby nor give birth. There is no sense of sacrifice that the father done which establishes his relationship with the child from a physical point of view. Again, this is just my opinion and I'm speaking in generalities.
No sacrifice on the father's part? Sounds like a horrible relationship for the ladyfriend. Maybe fathers shouldn't get any time with their children at all... after all: they sacrificed next-to-nothing to make these children, all they deserve is a picture of their child and maybe a potted plant.
Wouldn't want to unfairly suggest that they have any say in matters pertaining to the children they assisted in the development of, would we?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
