The Instigator
Zejo
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
jbrou20
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A business should not be forced to pay for maternity leave because pregnancies should be planned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Zejo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 770 times Debate No: 61481
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Zejo

Pro

As a strong supporter of women's rights and planned pregnancies as well as being a small business owner, I believe that it's unfair for an employee to expect their employer to pay for their absence from work due to their pregnancy since the employee was initially hired to do a job and their absence from said job means they cannot carry out that performance. Accidental pregnancies should not an employer's burden. I believe the employee has an obligation to plan their pregnancy and work out an arrangement with their employer in order to continue working for them. There should also be no law that forbids an employer from firing someone for getting pregnant if the employer can prove that the pregnancy has significantly hindered and reduced the employee's job performance.
jbrou20

Con

I disagree. Some people plan theirs but some people don't. Everyone needs a way to support themselves
Debate Round No. 1
Zejo

Pro

The employee's irresponsible behavior is not the burden of the employer.
jbrou20

Con

The point stands. How do people support themselves and a growing baby if they do not have an income. They still need income especially if it was a rushed decision
Debate Round No. 2
Zejo

Pro

The point does not stand. How a pregnant person receives an income is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the burden should be on the employer.

I don't believe it's fair to put that burden on the employer. A person is hired to perform a task, that is why they receive an income from the employer. If they're not performing the task anymore, the business cannot be run. Not only does this hurt the business but it's literally a breach of the original employment contract in the first place.

If the person were to plan the pregnancy from the beginning, they could discuss a paid maternity leave option ahead of time and avoid the whole problem to begin with. An accidental pregnancy, on the other hand, is (as I stated before) irresponsible behavior occuring in the employee's private life which has nothing to do with the business. Why should the business have to pay for that? It's a mistake that the employee will have to figure out how to live with.

Perhaps a solution is having the government step in and provide an income, and in fact that is what many people use welfare and unemployment checks for. I'm not sure it's the best solution, but I know that it's simply irrational and unfair to ask an employer to pay for the employee's mistake.
jbrou20

Con

The persons job in question should be protected even if they are unable to fulfil their duties because of pregnancy and as a taxpayer I want my money going to things better then government maternity leave. I want my money going to things like cheaper universities and more hospital beds.
Debate Round No. 3
Zejo

Pro

Pregnancy can be avoided 100% through birth control or abstinence. It's not an injury -- a pregnant person didn't accidentally fall on someone's penis. Therefore, it's an irresponsible act that puts the company at risk by having to hire another person to replace the mother during their leave. Why should the company pay twice? The employee *had* job security until they decided to have irresponsible sex. You still have yet to address this fact.

And regarding social services and taxes, why is paying for a new mother's welfare any different than cheaper universities and hospital beds? Universities are for creating more intelligent people and hospitals are for creating healthier people. The keyword here is "people". You want taxes to go towards people but don't want to them to help pregnant mothers? Why not? They aren't people?

Again, the issue here is not the pregnant person's source of income, it's the burden of generating income. The burden should not be on a business since the sole purpose of a business is to make money and they can't if they're spending it on someone who is doing nothing for the business in return. That is how business works: you work, you get paid for it. It's the pregnant person's burden to find another source during their pregnancy if the business does not offer paid leave.
jbrou20

Con

jbrou20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Zejo

Pro

Zejo forfeited this round.
jbrou20

Con

jbrou20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zejo 3 years ago
Zejo
Well said, @cheyennebodie. That is my point. If the government is going to step in, it should not be in a way that will harm the business as that will hurt the economy. And on that note, an irresponsible mistake like not using birth control or planning your pregnancy ahead of time is an even bigger problem for the economy since it means adding a new person to the population. Planning a pregnancy means a more responsible existence.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Government should not force anyone to do anything except keep the contract people agree to.If you give maternity leave in a contract for employment, then keep that contract. But it is immoral for government to force contracts on anyone. Of course, who in there right mind thinks that politicians , for the most part, have any honor whatsoever.Almost all the politicians I have ever listened to lie every time their lips are moving.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Zejojbrou20Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made some unsupported assertions. Pro's case was a little unclear--in the US at least, there IS no requirement for paid maternity leave. So was Pro arguing against the leave, or against the pay for the leave? I'm not sure. But I do know that Con only focused on the leave itself and, giving Pro the benefit of a charitable reading of the resolution, it seems as though Con didn't even address it.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
Zejojbrou20Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically made opinions. Pro had a little more depth in his arguments which is why the slight edge warrants 3 points to Pro