I read British Conservative MP, and potential successor to outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron Andrea Leadsom’s comments about having a supposed advantage over her counterpart because she is a Mom. They are completely out-of-touch. Her comments insist that only parents have a real interest in the future of their countries. The comments go on to suggest that being a parent means you have a tangible stake in the country. This is a classic example of a continuing pro-natalist mentality. Politicians want to cater to the family vote. The majority of platforms and policies anyone attempting to get elected revolves around doing things in the interest of “families”. The caveat always is that to them, “families” means households WITH children. It is astounding that the non-parent vote continues to be heavily ignored in democracies across the globe.

Has she thought for a moment about the people who might be trying to have children? Hearing this kind of thing may offend them even more deeply. Those couples may be struggling with medical issues that prevent them from becoming parents. They could be stuck in a long queue waiting for adoption paperwork to clear. They too have a tangible stake in the future of the country.

Let me offer another consideration. Someone who is choosing not to have children may be proving their interest in the future of their country. In the world. How? By not contributing to the problem of overpopulation! It is a very realistic possibility. The global population number is certainly a reason many people have just said no to children.

Having a “Baby-On-Board” sign in a car window does not make that car’s driver more important than a driver with no children. Really need to get on to making signs for myself that say “Non-Parent on Board”, or something like that.

We are all supposed to be equal. Whether we have children or not. Unfortunately, politicians and many of the people who closely support them still do not see it this way.   

@WriterDann