LOL Nina,

Obviously you have been rattled.

But never mind. Nobody is forcing you to have children.

What interests me is this:

WHO IS HAVING BABIES?

It is they and their children who are going to shape the future so I'd like to a bit about them.

What a pity I didn't meet more like Nina, in my younger days. I never wanted kids either.

However, despite my wife's tendances to pick up most of the bad things about feminism, avoiding having children was not one of them. In fact, the only way of stopping her cluttering the Whitsunday area with kids, was to move elsewhere. That didn't stop her, either.

I suppose there was one other, but that did not appeal to me, [or her] at the time. Her sister, an avoid feminist once asked her, "why she kept taking seriously, that which was only poked in fun, but she did not see the joke.

However, I do think Nina would be happier, if she did not take herself quite so seriously. She would most probably enjoy life more if she took her self as seriously as I take her.

Still, it must be hard, trying to be a meaningful journalist, when you really don't have anything to say.

and the idiotic media always painted Mr Howard as a man of the 1950's. Serves the voters right for being so naive and ignoring obvious facts. The spitefulness and hatred of John Howard prevented any light being shone upon Mr Rudd.

While Nina makes a good point about women's worth not being measured by how many children she produces it is worth noting that for decades now many feminist have tried their upmost to diminish the importance of mums who take up their responsibility to nuture and raise their own children. These women who sacrifice their own lifestyles are the true heroes of our nation. Instead of dropping babies off to creches and elsewhere they are prepared to follow their instincts in loving and caring for their offspring instead of listening to feminist dogma.

Mr Rudd was likely defending his 'Big Australia' policy to nearly double the population with migrants by 2020. 'Big Australia' has rightly come under fire through the government's lack of a mandate for it and concerns about sustainability and loss of quality of life. Dick Smith had this to say:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/25/2800081.htm

Nina is very welcome not to have children, however there are many couples who do want to have children but are being forced to delay or maybe even forgo children because of the cost of housing. The cost of housing is being forced up by demand with supply and infrastructure always falling behind the record numbers of migrants.

On the other hand there is a lot of prejudice evidencing itself against women who have or want children - they are referred to by the insulting 'breeders'. The connotation of the term is that these women regard breeding as their sole purpose in life - that they are no good for anything else and have no other worthwhile aspirations.

As the husband of a woman who left having children until it was too late, due to her search for self-actualisation, and who now feels bitter about all that all I can say is that I hope that you continue your journey of self actualisation and don't have children.

If they are not wanted, then they are not wanted.

I am with Pelican on this one.
Rudd is only interested in ensuring the effective financial future of Australia by increasing the birthrate.

Maybe he would rather naturally increase our population than bring in all those pesky immigrants that have given him so much trouble with the voters?

Nina needn't bother herself with children if she doesn't want them, but many couples do want children and many women do want to stay home and care for their children too.

If past Governments, and the present one, managed our economy more effectively, then maybe more couples could afford to have more babies and one of the pair could afford to stay home with them.
Too late now.