It's time to crackdown on geriatric spinsters

First and foremost, Pro accepts my contentions 1--4 which state: 1) He has not proven that childless women have contributed less to society (monetarily or otherwise) than married women with children 2) He has not proven that childbirth and childcare is of greater monetary value (the issue of this debate) than actual workforce labor AND the taxes paid from that labor 3) He acknowledges that the elimination of the glass ceiling and equal wages paid to both men and women would eliminate the premise for the debate entirely; in other words, if society would simply pay out equal wages to both genders (for the same workload and credentials), then spinsters would not be paying less in taxes than men 4) Pro is calling for the "crackdown" on spinsters who contribute less to society via taxes; however, he has not taken into consideration those who actually exploit those taxes via social programs like welfare. In other words, women (or spinsters in general) MIGHT pay less money in taxes, but at least they're contributing to society. Why should they be punished while other women with children are actually USING those tax dollars? Again, Pro agrees with those four major contentions which pretty much is enough to win me this entire debate alone. Moreover, he posted 1/2 of his round in the Comment Section which is vehemently disregarded on this site. We both have the burden of posting within the character parameters that Pro himself has set forth. However, for the sake of debate, I will address his few faulty arguments anyway: 5) First, note that Pro failed to respond to my argument that it might not be a good thing that all women reproduce since there is an over-population problem which leads to the depleting of resources and other troubles. That aside, he argues that spinsters might work a job that does not require them to pay taxes. Note that the key word here is "might," and additionally, other jobs for both men AND women (with children) exist where they don't pay taxes or get paid off-the-books. Pro has really made no argument here nor argued against mine, thus this should be yet another contention in my favor. 6) Pro has not answered my question of how or why senior citizens are expected to work in the first place (he merely noted that he sympathizes a.k.a. agrees with that position). He also hasn't included an alternative to helping the elderly, or even suggested that we not help them at all and leave them to rot. If he had, I would have negated that notion, but since he hasn't, explicitly, I won't waste the characters doing so. Instead I'll note that his main argument of, "Young women will know that the only way to guarantee a comfortable retirement would be to have children" is inherently flawed when paired with his other contentions. Since child rearing doesn't lead to tax contribution, then what Pro is saying is that they should receive tax funding despite not contributing monetarily towards helping society. On the other hand, spinsters (unmarried, child-less women) should not receive help from society, even though they have contributed via taxes... hmm. This seems entirely illogical. Moreover, Pro has not indicated how this applies to married women with no children, or women with children who don't get married. Pro also hasn't mentioned whether or not this applies to disabled individuals or those with other handicaps. In other words, women might not have a choice regarding whether they are spinsters or not. It would be wrong and discriminatory to punish them. In conclusion, this notion (resolution) is entirely non-sensical and obviously could not ever be an implemented policy in real life. Had Pro actually presented a coherent argument in its favor, or at the very least negated my points, it may have been an interesting proposition. However failure to do so should result in a vote for the Con. Thanks, Brian, for an entertaining debate as always : )