“The number of children that you have is a choice and what we’re saying is that if people are living on benefits, then they make choices but they also have to have responsibility for those choices,” he said.
“It’s not going to be the role of the state to finance those choices.” He added: “You can have children but if you are going to ask for support that is more than the average wage that people earn, then we’re saying no, the state shouldn’t support that. That’s not fair on working people who have to pay the taxes to pay those benefits.”
I find it very hard to imagine that Jeremy Hunt is talking about natural family planning. It is an alien practise even in marital culture, except for a minority of loyal Catholics, to the United Kingdom, in which artificial contraception has become the certified norm and in which, on average, 200,000 babies are aborted every year. He needs to be clearer about the 'choices' of which he is talking.
If he is saying that the State will not 'fund' children who are born into poor families on benefits then is he saying that the State will fund those children to be aborted? Is he saying that the State will fund the sterilisation of people too poor to have children. Is he saying that in fact the State would consider forcing the poor to undergo both of these barbaric practises? Whatever his words were intended to mean, the Optimum Population Trust are over the moon that a Government minister should say such things.
No comments:
Post a Comment