Pregnant people in New York would have 40 hours of paid leave to attend prenatal medical appointments under a new proposal by Gov. Kathy Hochul after the state’s legislative session kicked off this week.
The Democrat’s plan to expand the state’s paid family leave policy, which would need to be approved by the state Legislature, aims to expand access to high-quality prenatal care and prevent maternal and infant deaths in New York, an issue that especially affects low-income and minority communities.
The U.S. infant mortality rate, a measure of how many babies die before they reach their first birthday, is worse than other high-income countries, which experts have attributed to poverty, inadequate prenatal care and other possibilities. The U.S. rate rose 3% in 2022 — the largest increase in two decades, according to a 2023 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
malthusianism is next to eugenics
I disagree. You honestly think we can keep growing to eternity?
>You honestly think we can keep growing to eternity
I didn’t say that
I don’t say you did. Just following your logic. And you agree we cannot grow forever. So when should we stop? You think we can’t stop now without dire consequences. But some future generation has to. So, who gets to face the consequences that you want to avoid for yourself?
>who gets to face the consequences that you want to avoid for yourself?
you’re making assumptions
I’m all ears
all I want to avoid is eugenics. I don’t know what vague"consequences"you’re referencing.
I’m not advocating eugenics. Where did I say only certain people should reproduce and others shouldn’t? Who is putting words into people’s mouths now? I’m done with you.
I’m pointing out that malthusianism is next to eugenics.
>I’m done with you.
thank God
>You think we can’t stop now without dire consequences
I didn’t say that
That seems to be what you are saying.
literally putting words in my mouth. what I’m saying is that malthusianism is next to eugenics.
>some future generation has to
not necessarily
Why not?
technological advanced are unpredictable. we could develop something that brings about effectively the end of scarcity.
>Just following your logic.
wrong
Feel free to explain. You say population decline (something which has yet to start) is a major problem that needs reversed, correct? So we need to grow faster? But you admit we can’t grow forever. So when should we stop growing?
>you admit we can’t grow forever.
I never said that.
So which is it. You said the same thing when I asked if we can keep growing forever.
I suspended judgement on both those claims
>You say population decline (something which has yet to start) is a major problem
I didn’t say that at all.