Maybe discouraging women from the genetic imperative to have children isn’t anything like ensuring people drive responsibly?
Perhaps there is an ideological component driving the compulsion to repeatedly concentrate the majority of funding into ineffective programs that only assuage ideologically fuelled concern without tackling the actual problem?
Could it be that funds would be better spent making sure families have the resources to secure their health and chances at prosperity, enriching their communities as they prosper?
Or do we listen only to the poisoned moral compulsion, borne of the misleading and ignorant fallacy of religious doctrine when planning how best to allocate resources?
Must the ‘have nots’ have so very little in order that they might serve their hellish purpose as a motivational factor for competition in the economy?
