Why Baby Love is Worth the Expense - Report Example

Why Baby love is worth the expense Name Institution Date Why Baby love is worth the expense Summary Generally speaking, there would be no offspring without parents who precede them. This is just an indication of how important parents are to their children. Parental love and care is the most important thing that a parent can offer to a child. The first months of a child’s life is critical and shapes the future of that particular child, hence the need to reflect on Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme. Standardization 1. A behavioral scientific study indicated that offspring raised by good nurturers produced positive results later 2. There is evidence from the National Centre for Children in Poverty in the US indicating that parental leave improves the health of the child 3. Data indicates that when governments support leave, and legislate it contributes to employers being able to retain staff, lower turnover, enhance productivity, command loyalty and improve morale on employees. 1. Baby care is critical to both the early stages of a child and the future of that child 1.1 The amount of time that the parent is going to spend with the new born is long enough 1.2 Fathers are more likely to remain involved in their children’s lives 2. Tony Abbott’s Coalition plan provides a model that would be beneficial to all the parties 2.1 The scheme is designed for the chief carer ensures that women will not be forced into it since the father is also qualified for it 2.2 A woman who has taken maternity leave will not be at a risk of becoming depressed, something that will ensure that she does not develop issues as far as her job is concerned and thus more caring to the child. 3. The baby care plan could also benefit industries. 3.1 All the parties ranging from the child, parents and the employers benefit from this plan 3.2 Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme would be in a position to hold on to their staff. 3.3 Woman will perform her duties at work well, which will benefit the industry. C: Baby love is worth the expense Evaluation The author is trying to persuade people to embrace baby care by considering Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme. Persuasive language The author tries to compare Michael Meaney’s research results to the human life. The conclusion the author makes from the research is that baby care tends to influence some genes in an offspring which is a strong indication that it is imperative to the life of a young one. The story calls for an immediate action to be undertaken to ensure baby care. By stating that “…I tell this story not so that we can start blaming mothers for not hugging their children enough”, is a clear indication that what the author is trying to put across the minds of the audience is that there needs more to be done in regard to baby care. The last paragraph is trying to induce some form of sensitivity into the matter. The author states “…how we value those who quietly labour to nurture the helpless, blinking aliens called newborns, and who rope us to a sleepless netherworld for months or years”. It is a sensitive matter that requires urgent action so as to provide the best scheme for mothers taking maternity leave. This particular text is based on some discussions and scrutiny that had been done in regard to Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme on the papers. The author is therefore trying to persuade people to not only criticize it but embrace the better provisions in it. The author has not only employed persuasive language, but has also given some facts and evidence to anchor his claims which is the focal point as far as this text is concerned. Main Argument The main argument as indicated in the standardization indicates that baby care is critical to both the early stages of a child and the future of that child. Premise 1 is based on fact from a study in genetics carried out by Michael Meaney, a Canadian behavioral scientist. Further, the writer gives evidence from the National Centre for Children in Poverty in the US indicating that parental leave improves the health of the child. This forms a strong basis for premise 2. These are good reasons for us as the audience to accept the author’s arguments and therefore the conclusion. However, we need to know and get it from this author’s text how good Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme is. We will need to look at the other arguments so as to find this out. First Sub-argument From the Coalition plan offers a provision for a six months’ parental leave, whereby whoever is nominated as the chief carer, be it the mother or the father will be entitled to certain wage. This is the mother’s replacement wage which amounts to a total of $75,000 and is attached to the mother’s wage so. Such an amount would enable people who have certain mentality that men who earn more that their wives should be the major carers, eradicate them. In addition to this, premise 1.1 offers support by providing time enough for a child to be breastfed, get immunized completely and at the same time get the necessary medical check-ups. These are very important things that a child requires in its early life so as to lay a strong foundation for a better future in terms of its physicality and psychology. This is a strong argument by the author to support the conclusion since most of the facts are evidenced by data from National Centre for Children in Poverty in the US. These are details such as a child getting breastfed, get immunized completely and at the same time get the necessary medical check-ups. Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme only indicates that fathers are more likely to remain in their children’s lives as long as the wife who is on leave stays and stays employed since she does not get depressed. However, there is no any data to show that it true that the fathers will remain involved in their children’s lives, which is a weakness in premise 1. The author only claims that the father is only likely to remain which she has no proof at all. Such an argument that cannot be supported by any evidence but only persuasive language cannot suffice. However, generally speaking the audience would be persuaded to lean on the author’s side. Second sub-argument At the same time, Tony Abbott’s Coalition plan offers a system that would be of great advantage to all the parties. The fact that scheme is designed for the chief carer ensures that women will not be forced into it since the father is also qualified for it. One gets the presumption that the parent who gets it will provide the best baby care since it has been done willfully rather than out of coercion. On top of that, the belief that women do not work is eradicated, one that brings about some form of stigma to some women. A woman will therefore let her husband be the chief carer, therefore getting entitled to the leave in order for her to be happy. However, it is imperative to note that this is just but a presumption on the part of the author. There is also the presumption that the woman will perform her duties at work well, which will benefit the industry since the woman will be entitled to it at her place of work. This form of Coalition model ensures that “…having babies is a legitimate reason for time off for workers and may change common workplace attitudes that assume a woman having babies is not serious about her job” (Eva Cox2013). Third Sub-argument Baby care also benefits industries. This is a cycle in that the employers who would offer a system such as Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme would be in a position to hold on to their staff. This way, there is reduced turnover and at the same time improved productivity since the workers are psyched up due to the loyalty that they have for their employer. This way, a woman who has taken maternity leave will not be at a risk of becoming depressed, something that will ensure that she does not develop issues as far as her job is concerned. This will consequently reflect on her job at the end of the leave; which will be a positive impact to the employer who runs the industry. This is a strong argument on the part of the author that has some logic in it. However, there have been critiques that have an issue with Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme. Many have argued that such a scheme would be subsidizing the wealthy women. In addition to this, it is imperative to note that this leave does not only apply to women alone but to the chief carer and in some instances it may be the man. Premises 3.1 and 3.2 do not have any evidence but have reasonable weight in terms of logic to support the subsequent conclusion. Conclusion The evidence that is there is that whenever governments support leave and makes it a legal requirement, then a bigger number of parents actually take it. Such a scheme as Tony Abbott’s Coalition plan would be of great importance to the growth of the child, the family unit and the employment industry as well. As much as there are some loopholes in the scheme, most of the provisions are what actually the world needs to ensure strong foundation for our children who ensure the continuity of generations. It is therefore imperative that we nurture them in the best way possible so that they can attain that great future that we want them to, and a better place in tomorrow’s world. The main argument and the subsequent premises given by the author are sufficient enough for us as the audience to accept the conclusion. Read More

The author has not only employed persuasive language, but has also given some facts and evidence to anchor his claims which is the focal point as far as this text is concerned. Main Argument The main argument as indicated in the standardization indicates that baby care is critical to both the early stages of a child and the future of that child. Premise 1 is based on fact from a study in genetics carried out by Michael Meaney, a Canadian behavioral scientist. Further, the writer gives evidence from the National Centre for Children in Poverty in the US indicating that parental leave improves the health of the child.

This forms a strong basis for premise 2. These are good reasons for us as the audience to accept the author’s arguments and therefore the conclusion. However, we need to know and get it from this author’s text how good Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme is. We will need to look at the other arguments so as to find this out. First Sub-argument From the Coalition plan offers a provision for a six months’ parental leave, whereby whoever is nominated as the chief carer, be it the mother or the father will be entitled to certain wage.

This is the mother’s replacement wage which amounts to a total of $75,000 and is attached to the mother’s wage so. Such an amount would enable people who have certain mentality that men who earn more that their wives should be the major carers, eradicate them. In addition to this, premise 1.1 offers support by providing time enough for a child to be breastfed, get immunized completely and at the same time get the necessary medical check-ups. These are very important things that a child requires in its early life so as to lay a strong foundation for a better future in terms of its physicality and psychology.

This is a strong argument by the author to support the conclusion since most of the facts are evidenced by data from National Centre for Children in Poverty in the US. These are details such as a child getting breastfed, get immunized completely and at the same time get the necessary medical check-ups. Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme only indicates that fathers are more likely to remain in their children’s lives as long as the wife who is on leave stays and stays employed since she does not get depressed.

However, there is no any data to show that it true that the fathers will remain involved in their children’s lives, which is a weakness in premise 1. The author only claims that the father is only likely to remain which she has no proof at all. Such an argument that cannot be supported by any evidence but only persuasive language cannot suffice. However, generally speaking the audience would be persuaded to lean on the author’s side. Second sub-argument At the same time, Tony Abbott’s Coalition plan offers a system that would be of great advantage to all the parties.

The fact that scheme is designed for the chief carer ensures that women will not be forced into it since the father is also qualified for it. One gets the presumption that the parent who gets it will provide the best baby care since it has been done willfully rather than out of coercion. On top of that, the belief that women do not work is eradicated, one that brings about some form of stigma to some women. A woman will therefore let her husband be the chief carer, therefore getting entitled to the leave in order for her to be happy.

However, it is imperative to note that this is just but a presumption on the part of the author. There is also the presumption that the woman will perform her duties at work well, which will benefit the industry since the woman will be entitled to it at her place of work. This form of Coalition model ensures that “…having babies is a legitimate reason for time off for workers and may change common workplace attitudes that assume a woman having babies is not serious about her job” (Eva Cox2013).

Third Sub-argument Baby care also benefits industries. This is a cycle in that the employers who would offer a system such as Tony Abbot’s paid parental scheme would be in a position to hold on to their staff.

Read More