Your argument is valuable, and I appreciate it. Thank you for giving me your time, and thank you for remaining honorable in your replies. I hope we can continue that at a later time, but inevitably, this topic will fill up with distasteful comments, so if you are so inclined, I would like to continue it by pm, however, my guess is that there is some sort of audience to our discussion, and I wouldn't dare to withhold any information/debate/reasoning/entertainment from them. If anyone wants this particular discussion to continue, please let me know.
It is 1:35 in the morning at the time I typed this line, so I am naturally very tired, so I must withdraw for a few hours.
Anyways, I'd like to know where your argument comes from. I noticed on your profile that you said you were from Australia. I am aware that Australia manages itself with compulsory elections, rather than voluntary elections, and although America and Australia were identified in a study exceeding 40 years to be the most culturally similar, there must be some sort of line drawn that distinguishes social and political liberties.
You are at liberty to knock down any false assumptions I may have, but my guess is that your position grows out of the idea that there is a need for compulsory social programs. I don't necessarily disagree with you—some such programs have proven to people's benefit. All things considered, however, the idea of compulsory educational programs for expectant parents might be problematic and a funnel for funds, not necessarily a waste. For instance, mothers' opinions are not guaranteed to change during the informative process. Even if the end result is the same as they wanted originally, it would accomplish at least two things. The first is that it put the parent(s) through unnecessary schooling. The second is that it could be used as a tool to place liability on the parent(s).
Also this thread really upped your posts per day stat lol.
