That's possible, and in fact the legislation, the politics should graduate the advantages towards those who have children and give less to those who don't have children.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I would say if we can select children who are not going to be severely disadvantaged, then we should do so, but I think it has to be done by voluntary choice.
It is a truism that children need more of Mother than of money.
If women have young children, they are one man away from welfare.
I think I can allow myself one child - and from then on, I think I would have to adopt. It makes sense not to add to the population problem.
As a mentor and an advocate, I've seen no end to the ways that childless people can contribute to the lives and well-being of kids - and adults, for that matter.
There's really no point in having children if you're not going to be home enough to father them.
Having children is what a woman is born for, really.
Although children are only 24 percent of the population, they're 100 percent of our future and we cannot afford to provide any child with a substandard education.
There is nothing more fundamental than the idea that the government does not have a right to decide when and whether we have children.
The problem is, we live in a society where all that interests us is power and money. So we don't have any interest in our children, and what we leave for our children is not important.