“They only reside with you for that time,” Anne explained. “You can see them at any time. They will always be your children. Six years is enough to instill love and security and freedom to explore. But they want to continue exploring. Heretofore they had to wait twelve years to see what the world’s all about and how they might fit into it. Today’s schools are limited in curricula so as to squeeze every child into one academic mold. Unless they can afford college, they’re only fit for mindless jobs in factories or offices. From now, each child will find his or her own special way. By the time they’re in their teens, many will be professionals, productive and challenged and . . . content.”
It seems it’s all about making things: clothes, furnishings, or farming or cooking. What about pure science and philosophy? Without them, we’d still be living in caves! Uhh—sorry.
More welcome laughter and Richard took a breath to reply. “As long as they do not in any way disturb the earth or any other species, and can contribute something, they shall certainly be encouraged.”
Anne shouted, stepping up beside him, “hands up for Article Seven, education.”
An unsettling quiet mingled with the sounds of birds as the hands slowly, almost obediently, rose. Counting every delegate, Anne hit the gavel. A glance at Richard; just two more articles.
Article Eight. Population. There will be a temporary moratorium on childbirth.
I am reminded of the fantasy, Gulliver’s Travels. It’s no fantasy. The planet’s human population has exploded from one billion in 1840 to nearly five billion. Unchecked, it will deplete the earth’s resources and lead to the extinguishing of every living species, including ourselves.”
That is madness! This was echoed variously.
You’re taking away a woman’s birthright! This from a man.
“In some countries women have ten children—twenty. China prohibits more than one child per couple. There are simply too many of us. We must show our commitment to earth first.”
How do you propose to carry that out?
Anne swallowed. “There exists a chemical which can render sperm temporarily unproductive. It can be placed in the water supply and is otherwise harmless.”
That’s what they said about DDT!
“We have long discussed it but we can see no other way. All those young people out there have agreed. What say you?”
Madam speaker, what if, after a generation the male reproductive organs don’t recover? This from a former conservative congresswoman and a doctor, and she received forceful clapping among her colleagues. This was the question Anne had feared, but which they were prepared for. She turned and glanced at Richard, and he shrugged, finally nodding.
“Doctor, your question is well-taken. Therefore, we shall amend Article Eight. The chemical will not be taken by childless couples . . . until they conceive. Will that satisfy your concerns?”
In part, yes, but what about single men? And boys?
“I see no reason why men or boys who are not already fathers shouldn’t also be exempt. For them, bottled water will be provided.”
From the same woman: But if the chemical is in the water supply, it will be used in the kitchens, in soups, coffee, tea. How will you isolate it?
Another tricky issue. “We will use bottled water in the kitchens.”
Why use a chemical that may contain dangerous side-effects, when safe and tested preventive measures such as contraception or the pill are already out there?
Richard scratched his head; boy, was this lady prepared. Thank goodness it was a woman responding to these difficult questions.
“Yes they are relatively safe, but it’s back to manufactured items or drugs which require distribution and testing. Besides, they are also easy to forget using, or cheating and calling the pregnancy an accident.”
Prompting the doctor’s next devastating question. And what if either by forgetfulness, accident or cheating, a woman who already has a child becomes pregnant? Are you now speaking of abortion?
There was scattered comment; the audience was watching a contest of wills.
“No, ma’am, I am not, and I’m glad to find a happy solution to one of your excellent questions. That infant will be offered for adoption by a childless couple.”
The applause was by far the loudest, even among the delegates. Because they had won concessions, Richard wondered, and why had it mattered so?
I have one final question. For whom was this chemical developed?