Having a child is to society what eating food is to the individual.
You can choose not to eat food, but the individual will not last long.
You can choose not to have kids but the society won't last long.
It's in our interest to support the human part of humanity. We do that with breaks, meal breaks, sick time, vacation time, and other things. But it's also in our interest to benefit society, not just the individual. So we incentivize choices which are mandatory to the health and success of our society, such as creating the next generation to replace those aging out of the workforce.
It would be in the general interest of society if I took some time off to volunteer my efforts in aid to those in need in other countries (or maybe my own). Maybe I would rather do that than have kids. Should we create a special category of time off for that?
Some employers to have that. They're called sabbaticals.
My current employer also has a policy allowing a certain amount of unpaid time out of the office for charity projects that you'd like to participate in.
Indeed, and sabbaticals are not limited to taking leave for children. They are something entirely different from maternity or paternity leave. Something of that nature is what I am proposing.
There's no immediate need to go volunteer. That's an incentive that an employer might offer. Society does need to maintain some level of growth, though.
Now that you mention it, I'd like to take some time off to hit the gym and get into shape instead of having kids. Improving individuals improves society, and if everyone had this benefit, there might be less obesity.
Many workplaces do offer a wide variety of fitness related benefits. Free on-site gyms, fitness programs like walking or stretching offered on company time, memberships to nearby fitness facilities, etc.
Other cultures tackle it differently to. In Japan, organized stretching before work is commonplace.
However, it's very silly to compare procreation with fitness.
The fat procreator still benefits the society far more than the slim non...procreator, because on a 100 year or 200 year scale, both are dead, and the society only contains the progeny of one of them.
Put it this way: would you rather have a phone that can be upgraded a ton but will eventually wear out and stop working, or have a phone which can be endlessly replaced such that it is always modern and working, even if it isn't top of the line?
You can choose not to eat food, but the individual will not last long.
You can choose not to have kids but the society won't last long.
It's in our interest to support the human part of humanity. We do that with breaks, meal breaks, sick time, vacation time, and other things. But it's also in our interest to benefit society, not just the individual. So we incentivize choices which are mandatory to the health and success of our society, such as creating the next generation to replace those aging out of the workforce.