This sort of makes sense. I know there are exceptions, but why on earth are we paying for zillions of these unwanted kids which cannot be brought up suitably? I quote:
There is a far easier way to reduce the abortion rate, discourage feckless little slappers from getting up the duff in the first place. No free house or government money till you are over 18. If Shaznay, and more importantly, her parent(s) thought, for 1 second, that the full financial responsibility of bringing a baby into the world fell squarely on her/their shoulders there would be far less 'accidents'. If Shaznay is over 18 then she get's her free 1 bedroom flat and financial support for THAT child. If she has another 'accident' whilst on benefits, well, tough fucking shit. No housing upgrade, no extra financial support, nothing.
Guess what they are doing in India?
Close to 10 per cent of Indian households are opting to have only one child as they seek to concentrate their resources to maximise earning opportunities for their offspring in a scramble for jobs.
The research shows that competition for jobs in a fast-growth economy was the greatest determinant of the single child trend in India. Couples with a single child did not consume or work more, or enjoy greater leisure time. What marked them out from larger families was their greater investment in their children to help them attain white collar jobs.
Single children received more education expenditure, were more likely to be enrolled in private school, and by the time they reached 11 years of age were more likely to be able to do basic arithmetic.
“Education has grown, but jobs have not,” said Ms Desai. “There’s a great deal more competition.”
Extraordinary thinking amongst the politicians in the UK, when will they grow up and realise that we cannot really keep on having more kids than what we can support?