The word 'discriminate' is always presented as a negative. Certainly, in most cases that will be true.However, if for example somebody bravely dares to criticise single motherhood - there will be a barrage of attacks and ultra defensive posturing. There will be letters in the press stating "My husband died in an accident....." - "I was abandoned by my husband of 11 years, leaving me alone with..." etc. Such genuine instances are simply not relevant to the issue.
Clearly, those who state opposion to single motherhood are opposing those who deliberately get pregnant to create a benefits lifestyle; those whose promiscuity has led to the situation; those who have taken risks for their own gratification and then expect society to bankroll the consequences of their behaviour.
There are massive distinctions to be made. By not discriminating, we are actually being unjust to those who are true victims and to those who are socially responsible.
Sickeningly, I have even heard apologists for these admittedly tragic women, claim the Virgin Mary as 'a single mother'. [?????] There is a deliberate movement to abolish the concept of 'shame'.
Even though I am personally against the choice to become a single mother when somebody can afford to support their child themselves, in today's society, one must accept that there is a major difference with that particular, disagreeable scenario.
Blame MUST be apportioned but only where necessary. Only the innocent victims deserve total support from the state. For those who do not fall into this category, support from their family and the father of the child should be primary and state help should be via hostels rather than by the award of a council flat and a decent lifestyle as an umerited prize for their irresponsible behaviour.
In other words, the present incentives to get pregnant or be careless, must be removed.
In order to avoid even more abortions, a system needs to be established which allows for much easier adoption from such young women.
Harsh? - Not really. Harsher than the failing system we currently endure with all of its expense, pressure on the housing market and extreme social problems? - Undoubtedly. But society would begin to improve immediately and the benefits would accrue over less than a decade.
This is a classic case of 'do-gooder' thinking. The more support you give under the present setup, the worse the problem becomes - and ultimately society pays a greater price than the financial costs.
Discrimination can have positive outcomes.
