Sleep well.
For one thing, they’re consumers. If it wasn’t for them, clothing, books, food and entertainment sales would be way off. They may not earn most of the the money spent on these items, but it doesn’t matter. These industries consider children to be a market. http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article61.html
They are also learning skills that will be applied in society when they’re older. Just as each of us started out non-productive, most of us are now contributing members in the working world. It’s a shame that some people don’t learn how to interact with all members of society. Most children learn this skill from adults and apply it to adults, children, the disabled, and the retired segments of society throughout their lives. It’s a necessary component to making the world function.
But your “drain on society” as a child already (or still is) happening. So you owe everyone. INCLUDING the children. You are in debt to society.
Well, you’re wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual. The numbers don’t support your argument.
No one is surprised by this. No one.
Sorry to call you that. I couldn’t think of a better word, though. You tried to be rational and for that I salute you even if your position is sorry.
Yeah? So you’re free to just fuck off, right?
That’s because I spend all day every day kissing my wonderful, beautiful, perfect, flawless, brilliant children’s asses.
Also, Dude, “crotch-spawn” is not the preferred nomenclature. “Pussy turds”, please.
We should check IP adresses, perhaps they are all the same physical person 
It’s hard to believe that she didnt understand that she is “crotch-spawn” as well …
No, she’s not crotch-spawn! She and starwarsfreek and curlcoat budded off each other like amoeba, fully formed and grown, which explains their tag team similarity in outlook AND their contempt towards those of us who exited a vagina as wee squealing babies. See, it all makes sense now.
Again, circular logic. You say we need children to provide consumers, and we need children to grow up to produce clothing, books, food, and entertainment. Nonsense. If we had less children, there would be less demand for those things.
What “numbers” are you talking about?
And if parents weren’t parents they’d probably spend just as much or more on clothing, books, food and entertainment for themselves. When my daughter was a child, my husband and I spent a lot of our discretionary income on her. I was not able to work at a decent-paying job when she was in grade school, because I couldn’t schedule the hours around her needs, so we had less income than if we had been childless. When Lisa graduated college and got her own job, we started spending a LOT more money on our wants, rather than the family’s needs. However, because I couldn’t start and keep a really decent career because I was a mother, our lifetime income will be less than if we’d never reproduced.
I don’t think that you can argue that children are CURRENTLY great economic stimulators. They’re necessary to keep society going, yes, but I think that if the current parents didn’t have kids, they’d spend as much or more money as they do now.
Why do you need a better word? I’m just a lurker who came out of the woodwork for this thread, unaffiliated with any of the other posters who happen to be on my side. My position isn’t any more sorry than that of the OP, who thinks that my life is worth less than others because of my opinion on one subject.
… and you aren’t?
Great, because the world needs more egotistical, narcissistic assholes.
I agree with that last sentence–but your position is no less sorry than the OP’s either.
I’m not judging the OP to be an “emotionally immature, self-absorbed, narrow-minded, narcissistic, pinched little jackass” or an “intolerant, bigoted, hate-filled, abrasive cow” based on his position. I’m not making any character judgements based on this one argument. I don’t really hold any ill feelings toward him or anybody who happens to disagree with me. In my opinion, that puts me one tiny step ahead. But YMMV, of course.
I disagree.
Here’s a few simplistic examples:
When a couple increase their family (have kid/s), the stimulus to the economy is great. Fistly they upsize their housing, cars and insurance plans to accomodate the new arrival. They buy furniture and clothing and bling for the kid (probably much more than is actually necessary, but anyway…) As the kid grows, there’s more food needed for the table, and more energy used with appliances (so they wear out more often) and gasoline for the car to ferry them too and fro’. There’s the shoes that need to be purchased every quarter as the kid grows, the immunizations and orthodontic work, and all the costs associated with educating them…
And in the process, there’s PEOPLE EMPLOYED to provide all of these goods/services. Thus the economy is kept going at great guns
In the case of a couple alone, they won’t buy a bigger house, car or more furniture. They won’t increase their food purchases/consumption (although they might buy higher priced items…but these do not add value economically to a society, just to the producers), they use less energy because things like washers and dryers are not utilized as frequently. They don’t need braces on their teeth, and (until they get older) generally visit the doctor rarely.
Certainly, the childless couple might spend as much, but the number of products/services that they are spending the monies on are severely limited, and thus don’t encourage a viable economy, at least in the way we know it now.
No, you don’t hold ill feelings toward people because of their opinions, you hold ill feelings toward people because of their age. That really doesn’t put you ahead of him.
Meh, whatev. Does this mean we’re rolling on to page 27 then?