On Nov.10, an "As I see it" column was published by Jack Lyford headlined "After second, tax each baby." It was a well-written essay, but several of his premises challenged several traditional and politically correct views. Amazingly, there was no response at all.

Mr. Lyford's assertion was that we currently lack the "negative feedback" necessary to curtail population growth to achieve sustainability, which he suggested could be introduced by eliminating tax deductions for any children beyond two (a tax increase). In the United States, the tax code has facilitated social engineering for generations.

But what does this communicate to our children? That some children are tolerable, but too many will be regrettable and those guilty of having too many will be reprimanded? Or, will they understand that human life must be perceived as negative and something that must be dealt with harshly (abortion, euthanasia)?

Of course, this view is not new. In the 1960s, my school teachers proclaimed we will have used all the oil on the planet by 1970s. They insisted that the planet would be out of room by the 1980s. Global starvation would be the rule, not the exception by 1990s.

Well, anyone flying over the United States can't help but notice we still have a little room left. We now have more known global oil reserves that are off limits than were known to exist in the 1960s. And technology, some created right here at Oregon State University, has provided the capability to feed more using less land and in more severe climates than ever before. And starvation has become primarily a result of draught, genocide or political unrest.

The greatest problem with all of this is how we are asked to view children as a whole. To those with more than two children, should we now sit down with our "Too large of a families" and announce our shame and deep regret of having too many children? Do we express to those "more than two" children that they were a horrible mistake? Will large families be ostracized from our communities?

Unfortunately to Mr. Lyford, I see every one of my children as a blessing and a gift. They represent a great future of potential and possibilities. Beyond that, when I look in the face of my children, I see my loving wife who sacrificed her time, body and career to share the greatest gift of love than anyone could ever give. I can not and will not view my wife as a destroyer of the planet!

Finally, it was astounding the lack of response from the women's groups. The day of the article, I read a bumper sticker which said "Keep your laws off my body." I understand the view of the bumper sticker, but changing the tax law to punish, manipulate or control women's bodies to adhere to a maximum number of children evidently is something women must be OK with.

Mark Lilley is a Corvallis resident.