Yes, that is how parents like to present their personal choice: They are having children for the good of everyone, it's a selfless act that has nothing to do with their own notions of personal fulfillment, therefore society should chip in and help out.

Actually that was my take on it, and I have no children. I've never heard one parent say that they're having kids for the greater good of society. All parents I know state that they have kids because they wanted kids.

Oops - I should have clarified - that's how affluent (and usually) white parents like to think about it, and mainstream society seems willing to affirm that belief. But when the parents are young, poor, belong to minority group or are immigrants (especially illegal ones), society is very critical and VERY reluctant to help out in a sustained way.

That's true, and they pay through the nose for WIC, welfare, foodstamps, Head Start, special education, and the prison system. Pay a little now or pay a hell of a lot later, you decide.

Thing is - out of all the babies born, some will actually contribute to society, some will turn in evil destructive ratbags, and most will be just average over-consuming Westerners trashing the planet. Quite possibly the most responsible choice and best thing one can do for civilization is NOT to have children.

By "contributing to society" I mean things as mundane as growing up to become taxpayers and parents who volunteer at schools to make up for shortfalls in education funding. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live (the USA) our version of a national pension system (Social Security and Medicare) is funded by the taxpayers one or two generations *after* the people utilizing it. Unless that arrangement is turned on its head *today*, your survival after retirement is going to be funded by the children of your coworkers. It's in your own economic best interest to support them now to ensure that they will grow up to be fully-functional members of society who can and will pay their taxes to support you in your dotage. Your old age isn't going to be very comfortable if its being financed by a generation of people with poor infant nutrition and drugged to the nines for ADHD triggered by being plunked in front of a TV set at three months old by the only provider of "affordable daycare" around.

Sorry folks, you're never going to get me to believe that in addition to the taxes I ALREADY pay for other people's kids day care, health care, education, and various social programs, I now have to pick up the slack for parents who want to get paid to stay home with the outcome of their personal choice (heck, if you're so sure of your choice, save up YOUR OWN money to take that time off). And I'm not supposed to complain about it?

No, you're not. You're expected to act like a reasonable adult and accept that you are the beneficiary of taxes that *I* pay for services that I do not utilize (see below: roads, for most of the year. Do I get my money back?) You will also be the beneficiary of Social Security and Medicare, which my coworker's baby daughter will eventually fund with her income tax.

Suck it up.

My issue is that parenting is the only personal choice for which people get paid time off...[complain complain me me me]

C'mon folks, you want a year off? Save up and pay for it. If your kids are that important to you, why can't you make this one "sacrifice"?

FMLA guarantees up to twelve weeks of UNPAID leave and a return to the same or commensurate job upon returning to the company. That's all. Where are you getting this "year off with pay" bullshit? If your company offers that, then that's your company's policy, and it's not being funded by you or me or any other taxpayer. If you want a paid sabbatical, talk to your employer or find another job.

Now that we're clear on that, when do I get my refund for taxes I've paid for state and federal highway funds? You choose to drive, so I think you should shoulder the entire burden. After all, driving is your PERSONAAAAAL CHOOOIIIIICE! Right?

My one of my prior employers reimbursed for employees that took classes, even ones that don't have any thing to do with their job. They also gave sabbaticals to employees pursuing MBAs. Why? Because it was good for the company, they were able to hire and retain the best of the best with these policies.

Did you work for UTC by any chance? They're amazing. I'm sick with jealousy over their pro-smart-employee policies (in stark contrast to my current company where our CEO actually said in a meeting that we would never get tuition-reimbursement bennies because he didn't want us to all leave once we were sufficiently educated to get another job -- "keep 'em dumb and too unqualified to leave" is apparently the policy here!), *and* their earnings jumped by something crazy like 26% last quarter.

Actually, they just posted a bunch of non-engineering jobs in my geographic area, hm...

Who's paying for the ultrasound?

Oooh, good question! I can't wait for the insurance companies to chime in on this one. Medical offices rely on that compensation to pay for expensive machines, so they're sure as hell not going to eat the cost their techs' time by allowing it to be wasted on unnecessary and unwanted procedures when they could be using that time to perform paid work for patients who want or need ultrasounds.

What's the word for someone sticking something in your vagina without your consent. . . come on, it's on the tip of my tongue. . .

Just to be clear, nobody specified that they *had* to be transvaginal, just that they had to be done.