"Folks could start by rescinding their "right" to non-procreative sex and their "right" to have children by artificial means."
Boy, you just lost me.
My wife and I are both 49 and have NO intention of having any more children. We also have NO intention of giving up the pleasure of sex, which is one way we express our love for each other. Are you seriously suggesting we do so?
Friends of ours had a child by artificial means because they couldn't so otherwise. Are you seriously suggesting they would be better off childless? If so, that's pretty sick.
===== My wife and I are both 49 and have NO intention of having any more children. We also have NO intention of giving up the pleasure of sex, which is one way we express our love for each other. Are you seriously suggesting we do so?
Are you Christian? Because if you're not Christian, I'm sure you're within your rights to sterilize yourselves, have abortions, use abortifacient birth control or whatever pesticide you deem best for preventing human life so that you can enjoy the Evolutionary Advance of Modern Man that is non-procreative sex.
=== Friends of ours had a child by artificial means because they couldn't so otherwise. Are you seriously suggesting they would be better off childless?
Are there no children left in China, the former Soviet Union or the United States to adopt? You get a fat $10,000 tax cut if you shop for kids at one of the current or former communist countries, you know.
I'm sure that the children they had to sacrifice (unless, of course, some "humanitarian" snapped them up for stem cell research) were well worth the trouble of obtaining with a for-profit sex partner the Child they had a Right to Have.
You can thank your friends, by the way, for paving the way for the homosexual "right" to have kids. I'm sure God didn't intend homosexuals to be "better off" childless simply because their sexual relations do not produce offspring either.