As a closet Vulcan, I am not opposed to the term "childless," but having pondered the matter, I believe that there is a real value in the term, "childfree." Historically, married couples have been expected to procreate, and the term "childless" is usually associated with a couple that wanted children but, sadly, were unable too. Nowadays, other couples, such as me and she-who-must-be-obeyed, actively choose not to have children. "Childfree" better captures the idea of being without children by choice rather than circumstance.

Regading dog poop: at this point in my life, I've gotten so used to cleaning up poop and pee and vomit that it only fazes me when either a), I find poop or pee on my bed, especially pee, or b) any of that crap gets in my mouth, as happened more than once when I volunteered in post-Katrina emergency shelters. So, dog poop, while grosser than cat poop, doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is waking up rain or shine, warm or freezing, to walk Bosco, which is why I won't do that until I'm good & retired.

P.S. Your kids seem cool.

is something that qualifies as "pro-life."

It is in society's interests to care for children and make sure they are happy. Otherwise, 20 years down the line, what kind of society will we be living in? I prefer one with a majority of adults who had a rich, balanced, fulfilling set of childhood experiences growing up.

It used to be called "childless" a fine old accurate English word.

I'm with you on the pets though. I got a bunch of rescued abused cats with issues that I am spending way too much on. The kids are putting pressure on me to do the same for some dogs; hating dogshit, I am resisting, but hey, those kids of mine are doing some good, right?

And I must admit that I do admire the phrase "child-free." It is right up there with "pro-life" as a euphemism.

How could any of us get through the day without euphemisms?

Anyway, as a blissfully childfree married man, I have no problems paying taxes to provide for paid leave for new parents, be they federal workers or otherwise. I would also gladly pay more taxes for free daycare, universal health care, and free, top-quality elder care facilities. As a communitarian, I believe that we should make our society as civilized as possible and provide care for everyone, from birth to death. True, this costs a lot of money, so instead of spending lots of money on death and destruction, i.e., our military-industrial complex, let's spend it on meeting the needs of citizens right here at home (instead of lining the pockets of war profiteers).

What I do resent is that I do not get a tax write-off for my companion animals. My wife and I are doing our share to clean up society's mess: the millions of dogs and cats and other domesticated animals that are tossed aside as so much garbage by a society that claims to love its pets. We have taken in as many animals as we can responsibly care for -- more than we would prefer, but we are doing what we can to make a terrible situation better. We save society money that would be spent on these animals (and all their offspring) in shelters, so while idiots like the Duggars get 18 tax write-offs for making the world a worse place (the last thing this overpopulated world needs is 18 additional First-world religious lunatics), we get nothing. That, I resent greatly.

"Suppose your kids go into a non-people, non-caretaking field? Suppose they don't care about you...and therefore certainly wouldn't care about any other senior citizens? Suppose they are too "busy" to care for others because they have kids of their own? In short, why are you asking the childfree to hope on a prayer that the sacrifices they make for parents will automatically be fulfilled in kind someday, maybe, hopefully?"

It is called paying taxes. And paying social security or whatever name each country's retirement ponzi scheme is called. Duh. And this in fact pays for not just kids, but the old and infirm and all the rest, even, to a degree, in a society as insane and dysfunctional as the US.

Society goes on, without us eventually. Either you care about that, or you don't, but society as a whole has a definite interest in its future, and should try and provide for it, even if it is not to the benefit of the individual "child-free" person. Those of us "child-enslaved" are doing our bit for the future; if you choose not to vote for the future, you are pretty much opting out of a vote on how it should be shaped.

And I must admit that I do admire the phrase "child-free." It is right up there with "pro-life" as a euphemism.

"If there is to be pay, it should be at the public expense, since it is assumed that children are of benefit to the long-term interests of the whole society."

Why do some parents use this "you selfish childfree--our kids will be caring for you" excuse as if it's written in stone? Suppose your kids go into a non-people, non-caretaking field? Suppose they don't care about you...and therefore certainly wouldn't care about any other senior citizens? Suppose they are too "busy" to care for others because they have kids of their own? In short, why are you asking the childfree to hope on a prayer that the sacrifices they make for parents will automatically be fulfilled in kind someday, maybe, hopefully?

"And secondly, giving benefits to public servants not available to the general population, seems like pretty poor policy. It surely isn't going to build trust and respect between the general public and the government, fer damn sure."

Nope. Along the same line, why isn't every worker entitled to four weeks of time off for family matters/illness/whatever? Some parents seem to forget that childfree people have parents/relatives _they_ are taking care of. But, then, it's easier to dismiss non-childed folks as selfish, trivial people who only care about their next trip to Cabo, or whatever?