J Holkar’s response (December 21) to my previous comment misses the point. He/she must know that I was referring to those irresponsible people, and particular youngsters, whose plain objective is to have a child in order for the state to provide for their needs for many years to come.
Whatever the size of this minority group is not relevant. A mother and baby will have to be accommodated somewhere by the council, and will get priority over someone else.
My observations were not directed at those well-meaning families who have been in stable relationships. They are a different category.
A hostel, or similar, does not need to be particularly austere but it should not be in any way luxurious either. What is vital is for a child to have love and stability. It is difficult to appreciate how either of these elements can be in place when a child is brought into this world with a fallacious intent and without any obvious means of independent support.
It is as well to be reminded that the most selfish act is to have children. We do it to simply satisfy our perceived needs. It is intensely demanding and we bear a lifelong responsibility for our offspring who directly reflect the way they were raised.
In this respect, I cannot imagine teenagers being particularly keen to forgo their active social life in order to properly nurture and educate the child.
What matters are the babies and children; rather more so than reckless and immature adults. This is the reason for needing the close on-site supervision and control.
Clearly J Holkar has a hidden history. Mine was one of unimaginable poverty; but we had parents who cared enough to put us first, working extremely long hours to ensure they did not take anything from the state.
Stigmas and decent standards are both in short supply these days. Is there a connection I wonder? And for the avoidance of doubt; I am serious about this subject matter.