> Yes, but is a birth rate above replacement a good thing or a bad thing? Well, a birthrate below replacement can have a number of negative consequences, espec

> Yes, but is a birth rate above replacement a good thing or a bad thing? Well, a birthrate below replacement can have a number of negative consequences, especially in a society like ours with the way we've setup social security. > If it's determined to be a socially good thing, then society should pay for it, rather than try to badger women out of the workplace to reduce their options and make them parents. For what it's worth, it was my father that was the stay-at-home parent for my childhood. Certainly I wouldn't want to force women to stay at home, but I've known a number who would at least like the option. How we pay for it is a valid question, but aside from the purely monetary aspect, there's question of emotional investment. Parents are generally only going to have as many kids as they feel they (collectively) have enough time for.