Comments on: Now it’s a legacy

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:02:21 +0000

Makes sense. I was trying to relate it only to the issue of abortion, and could only come up with a theory that it might reduce the abortion rate by making unintended pregnancy easier to handle, not forcing women to choose between abortion or sacrificing their career. This being primarily a pro-life blog, I didnt think to factor in other social factors aside from the direct impact on abortion.

By: David Clark

David Clark — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:19:59 +0000

Seems to me that the biggest problem with national day care is the mindset that sees that parents need someone to take care of their children and that someone will be government oriented with government mindset and values – this is social engineering reaching down to the youngest. A better idea is to support parents to allow them to raise their own children.

By: Brigitte Pellerin

Brigitte Pellerin — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:02:49 +0000

A couple of reasons in no particular order, based on Quebec’s experience, which is more or less what the Liberals want to introduce at the national level: It’s going to be WAY to expensive (government programs are ALWAYS more expensive), it puts pressure on women to go back to work early after having a baby, even when they don’t really want to (social pressure is very strong), it will benefit well-connected well-to-do families with 9-to-5 jobs at the expense of poorer parents who work shifts, and it cannot possibly be good to park very young children in a room full of strangers for up to 40 hours a week. Oh, there is also some evidence that intensive daycare for prolonged periods of time has negative impacts on children’s behaviour. Other than that, not much.

By: Suricou Raven

Suricou Raven — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:46:19 +0000

Would you mind explaining your objection to the program? I’m curious :>