bdog wrote:Caring for a spouse or parent is not something you choose to do. It's something that, regardless of the outcome, you just "get through". Having a child on the other hand is for most people, a choice, and one that is the reward of a lifetime.
Glad to see this exchange got around to being civil. Having also spent time as an adult both childless and be'childrened I side wholeheartedly with Kurt and I couldn't add anything that he hasn't already said.
But I did, perhaps, spot a potential point of common ground. Bdog, can you agree that all of the situations above (care for spouse, parent AND newborn child) all count as significant and traditionally recognized social obligations. And as such Kurt has a point that the law is designed not to simply indulge a certain constituency or individual's happiness, but instead to facilitate the performance of serious and very common familial centered social obligations.
That is, the law makes the Walton's option more viable, yes?
And, I still think the United States ought to draw back on its role as arbiter of the Israeli-Palistinian quagmire.