I really get tired of the idea a lot of men and I must add women have, that women were put on this earth only to pop out babies.

I am in my 50's and have never wanted and never had children. I am also damned proud of it and make sure other women know that they don't have to go down that road if the don't choose to.

It's also time governments started looking for other ways of handling the aging crisis that is coming. Instead of increasing the population.

Nice article. I have always wondered why an aging population is even a problem. I can see the simple argument that the working population will, slowly over the next few decades become a smaller propoartion of the total population, but that doesn't necessarily make it a problem. For a number of reasons.
1. This aging trend is known decades in advance, therefore governments, businesses and individuals can prepare for living in such a society.
2. The human population cannot grow indefinitely, so at some point we will be facing this dilemma.
3. People at work are far more productive then they used to be, therefore we will need fewer people at work to maintain the same society wide standard of living.

Also, isn't the author's (or any woman's) choice to not have children, or delay having children, actually solving the 'workforce ratio' problem by keeping women in the workforce in a highly productive capacity instead of at home caring for children (who, by the way, will also age over time).

Anyway, a good read. Thanks.

What is really interesting is that feminists can and often do, point out all the short comings of men. Existant and nonexistant.

However don't they get into a hissy fit, when men make comments that they object too. If men complain it is because they are being too sensitive etc etc.

Now I think Nina has an abundence of eostrogen, and needs a bit more oxytocin to counter act the effects of too much eostrogen.

As a woman I have never felt society regarding me as a baby incubator - it has always been a personal choice. The fact is we possess the womb and the eggs. Men possess sperm. It always takes two. Men might argue they feel they are just sperm providers.

What is disappointing about Mr Rudd's purported comments is this obsession with growing the population using the furphy of the ageing population. This is nothing about women's roles but about economics.

He is becoming the man of the unfortunate phrase but perhaps it is his way of trying to be friendly and injecting some light hearted repartee.

I love the double irony that pervades - on one hand Mr Rudd (and Mr Costello) wants us all out there earning money and contributing to productivity then turns around and makes comments that suggest we should all be out having children for the country. Here we all are with a workforce characterised by longer and longer hours, then in our spare time we ares supposed to be popping out children for the country.

Who is looking after all these children we are supposed to be having? We are certainly not encouraged to be at home caring for our own kids, that would be unproductive.

Bottom line is do what you want to do - whatever feels right for you.

Yes, good on you Nina, what an insult from the social-engineer-in-chief. It is absolutely none of the government's business whether you have a baby or not, and those who worry about "who's going to reproduce?" can go and reproduce themselves all they like, no-one's stopping them.

As for childless women making a contribution, Julia Gillard would have to be the worst example you could think of. We would all be better off if she were doing something constructive and socially useful like cleaning toilets; or even if she were just rocketed to the moon and left there as a kind of anti-decoration.

Now that you've concluded that women's uteruses are not public property, bravo, and you need to take the next step: neither are the labours of men or women whose wages and profits are taken by the government to "give the right support" to mothers to look after their own children. Democracy should not be used to make everyone feel free to treat their fellow citizen as their subject or slave.

pelican,

Now that Col's away, I designate you my new favourite poster. This has been attained by constantly saying stuff I agree with over a long period of time even though not being as entertaining as Col.

You give me hope. The contrast between the shrill cries of feminists like Nina and others in the media are soothed by your rational and sensible opinions.

'This is nothing about women's roles but about economics.'
Yes indeed. It needs a rabid feminist with an axe to grind to twist and contort it into the rant above.

Peter Hume,

'no-one's stopping them. '

It is also your choice to work and hence pay taxes, and disqualify yourself from the goodies the socialist state provides.