I hear it said fairly often that women/families who can't afford to bring up children should not have them. When I hear it, I cringe. Who has made it so that these families can't afford children? How do we know what genius will not be born if this socially Darwinistic rule is followed? What kind of species limits its own growth to account for the unequal distribution of wealth among its members? Will my English teacher forgive my string of rhetorical questions?
In Lomdon's Metro free newspaper there was an article on 9 February 2012, which complained that women's career progress is hampered by the 'lack of affordable childcare'. The article did not say that these women should not have children if they can't afford them. Do they want subsidised child care? If so, how is it different for the taxpayer to pay a child carer to look after children than to pay a mother to look after her own children?
In an RBE, childen would be bought up optimally as far as possible. This surely has to mean quality time with mum and dad, even if professional carers are used. Those who care for children (or anyone vulnerable) are, I am confident, motivated by the good they are doing, not only the £ they can get.