Saturday, 17 September 2005

Three's a crowd?

Saturday, 17 September 2005
So I've been thinking about this for a while and I've decided that the correct number of people needed to have a baby is three, not two.

Sure, two is fine for the initial bit and is obviously the minimum requirement for the process - my theory kicks in after the birth part of the whole scenario. I have considered the benefits of an extra person around during pregnancy (painting the nursery comes to mind) but I think one to gestate the foetus and another to run around moaning that they'll 'never go mountain climbing because they have to be a grown-up now and they're not ready for all that responsibility yet and are you sure the little stick thing showed a cross not a line' is probably enough.

No, it's after the birth when you need three people. To be honest, it doesn't matter whether it's two girls and a guy or two guys and a girl (or I guess three of each in these days of turkey basters and surrogate mothers) but what is important is that at least two of the three are producing milk (hey, this is my theory so if we need a little genetic engineering so that men can lactate I don't see why it should be a problem).

The benefits to all of this are immeasurable - whilst it's managable to have a child with two parents (after all people do it all the time) it would become a breeze with three. Feeding could be done on a rota basis. One person would be guaranteed a full nights sleep out of every three. You've got a sorted baby sitting situation as one stays home and the other two go out. One goes to work, one looks after the baby, one does the housework.

See, I told you I've been thinking about this a lot...

I'm sure there are downsides to this theory (such as what does the child call the third parent) but I haven't come up with any so far that outweigh the good of it all. LOL



Total Pageviews