ProWomanProLife

  • The Story
  • The Women
  • Notable Columns
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / All Posts / Now it’s a legacy

Now it’s a legacy

October 21, 2009 by Brigitte Pellerin 4 Comments

Hey, I suppose that’s good news. Liberal “leader” Michael Ignatieff calls his party’s plan to introduce a national daycare program a “legacy” issue. As far as I’m concerned, it can keep being a legacy issue all it wants, as long as it never becomes reality.

Do we have a deal, then?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Filed Under: All Posts

Comments

  1. Suricou Raven says

    October 21, 2009 at 5:46 pm

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

    Reply
    • Brigitte Pellerin says

      October 21, 2009 at 7:02 pm

      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.

      Reply
  2. David Clark says

    October 21, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    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.

    Reply
  3. Suricou Raven says

    October 22, 2009 at 5:02 am

    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.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssby feather

Notable Columns

  • A pro-woman budget wouldn't tell me how to live my life
  • Bad medicine
  • Birth control pills have side effects
  • Canada Summer Jobs debacle–Can Trudeau call abortion a right?
  • Celebrate these Jubilee jailbirds
  • China has laws against sex selection. But not Canada. Why?
  • Family love is not a contract
  • Freedom to discuss the “choice”
  • Gender quotas don't help business or women
  • Ghomeshi case a wake-up call
  • Hidden cost of choice
  • Life at the heart of the matter
  • Life issues and the media
  • Need for rational abortion debate
  • New face of the abortion debate
  • People vs. kidneys
  • PET-P press release
  • Pro-life work is making me sick
  • Prolife doesn't mean anti-woman
  • Settle down or "lean in"
  • Sex education is all about values
  • Thank you, Camille Paglia
  • The new face of feminism
  • Today’s law worth discussing
  • When debate is shut down in Canada’s highest places
  • Whither feminism?

Categories

  • All Posts
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Charitable
  • Ethics
  • Featured Media
  • Featured Posts
  • Feminism
  • Free Expression
  • International
  • Motherhood
  • Other
  • Political
  • Pregnancy Care Centres
  • Reproductive Technologies

All Posts

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in