Even though this is way off-topic, I will just say Gillards decision not to have children is her business, and she should never be condemned for not having children, irrespective of what her reasons are.
Mantra is correct when she says many people who shouldn't really have children do, and have them when they didn't really want them to begin with.
Does being childless effect the way she operates politically?
Quite possibly, because people who have never had children aren't always in tune to the needs and wants of those who do, and lets face it, a majority of Australians do or will have children of their own at some stage of their lives.
Her being childless may also impact on the way Australian voters (who have children) relate to her both as an individual/person and as a childless politician/decision maker who makes decisions concerning their own children's needs, (ie, education, maternal health and childcare etc) and their needs as parents also.
This aside, I think on the whole, Australian voters have been rather forgiving and open-minded in that they voted her in to become their PM ...even after she knifed Rudd.
Will they be as forgiving come next election?
I sincerely doubt it, which is why her only chance of he being re-elected weighs heavily on how much she can discredit, undermine the opposition leader Tony Abbott.
Because lets face it, she cant fall back on her leadership prowess, botched policies and assorted failed schemes.
I guess Boxy and co come in handy afterall.
