hilts
Well-Known Member
The Pink Panther said:hilts said:well for a start whether someone os married or not is irrelevant, in an ideal world anyone who has a child should financially support it, you cannot however stop giving benefits to a mother and its child, this is why some not all do it
the welfare state was set up as a safety net not a lifestyle choice however people will also find ways to use things to their own advantage
also the arguement others have made that because some teenage mothers look after their child financially means you cant discuss the high numbers that dont is laughable and typical
No it isn't.
If there's no benefits to be had an awful lot of legs will be closed and the unmarried birth rate will drop dramatically.
no moral society can punish the innocent(the child) because of the selfish(the mother) thats why they get away with it, are you suggesting a british government would allow kids to starve to stop mothers getting benefits? it wouldnt happen and they know it, as i said the welfare state was for those who cant not those who wont, the problem is you cant prove which is which and you certainly cant lets children live in abject poverty because their mother is a waste of time