This is absurd, but it's also part of a growing trend of government subsidized stupidity. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore, so they turn to the government for hand outs.
Why did she get the donation if she couldn't afford the child? Why was she legally allowed to get the donation?
Why does this guy have to pay for her idiocy?
This gives me a headache. I don't want to get into the large arguement ("debate") that's begging to be started (by me) - it just seems common sense that this whole issue could be side stepped by a simple rule: if you can't afford kids, (provided, of course, the welfare of the children is really what we're concerned about) you're not allowed to have them.
I've read too many stories about undeserving ne'er-do-well's using the government to plunder money from the people who actually (gasp) earned it. I think I'm going to have to stop reading the news... I can't stand this kind of thing!
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - Alexander Tyler, speaking about the fall of the Athenian Republic
