#Parentalresponsibility Where does it start - where should it start - where does it end?

This will be a short blog because I see the problem - I can ask the question but I do not know the answer. I do not have a solution. 

My question relates to parental responsibility.

Before I pose the question I would like to make a few basic things clear.

I believe I am compassionate. I cannot stand the prospect of child abuse in any form. All children should be safe. I believe our society should strive to ensure every child has the opportunity to reach their potential regardless of their background. I believe in fairness. I rail against unearned privilege. I believe in the welfare state as a safety net and as a catalyst for social mobility and levelling up (as far as is possible).

I also want to say I am a realist - I know things have to be paid for - I am a capitalist with a strong social conscience. I know resources are finite. I know socialism does not work.

So my question. It relates to the relationship between parental responsibility and government/societies responsibility for the welfare and upbringing of children in our society.

I will pose my question in the description of a recent TV news item piece. They interview mum and dad seperately in the front garden - in this covid lockdown. As so often is the case with mainstream media the underlying thrust is to find fault with government. Social housing - on a council estate. They have 6 young children. Basically it is one long whinge about what the government is NOT doing for them. The kids are off school. "how are we expected to self educate our kids if we have no computer in the house". What is the government doing about it if we can't send our kids to school. They are missing out on their education! " " Thanks to Marcus Rashford for forcing the government to give meal vouchers so our kids don't go hungry"   

It is clear the parents feel it is the governments job to provide for their kids - but many will think (including me) NO! - it is not the governments primary job - it is your job - you have primary responsibility - you have parental responsibility. Why do parents have children when they do not have the resources or in many cases it seems, the capacity to look after them properly !? I accept as most people would, it becomes the governments job - the tax payers job - when children are at risk - when children are suffering - but should not be the governments responsibility to the extent that parents feel/expect they can bring children into the world regardless of their personal economic or social circumstances.

Most people and I am one of them believe it is a human right to be able to have children. Adequate parenting/parenthood is not just or only dependent on financial resources. Many children have thrived from poor economic backgrounds - and having money is not any sort of guarantee of good parenting.

However surely there needs to be some balance - some commonsense. Here are a few bullet points I can make. They do not form a coherent arguement but views that might form a debate.

• Some couples decide not to have children because they cannot afford it.
• Some couples have children without considering if they can afford it.
• It is alleged that some choose to have children as a way of securing/guaranteeing welfare benefits - almost a life style choice.
• Some tax payers ask why should their taxes be used to subsidise other peoples children especially when they themselves have forgone having a family because they cannot afford it. (in their view).
• Some people argue having children is almost a public service - the next generation - the next generation to provide the workforce and generate the tax revenues on which society depends.
• It seems obvious the more government accept reponsibility for a child's welfare and upbringing the more it diminishes parental responsibility. 
• Reducing parental responsibility by government being interpreted as assumming responsibility/not emphasising paramount parental responsibility - could/will lead to bad outcomes. Parents surely should never be able to say my child is hungry - it is not my fault - my responsibility - it is the governments. But that seems to be the way things are going!
• It is surely beyond dispute that those early years of a childs life both in terms of nutrition, welfare and education are crucial/critical in a childs development. Early Years intervention strategies are tax payers monies well spent if a family life is inadequate.
• I would think all people want to live in a society where children have a safe, secure and supportive upbringing.
• However I think most people can see children are being brought into the world by parents who are unable to provide for them adequately right from the outset - from the pregnancy. Right from the outset those children are vulnerable. Right from the outset those children are dramatically disadvantaged. Right from the outset the family will be a massive and ongoing consumer of tax payers money.
• Chances of future criminality, drug use, poor health comes, more welfare benefits etc etc are much higher.
• Is this situation desireable? Of course not.
• Would it not be better if children were not concieved by inadequate parents. Most people would say yes.
• If it is not desireable can anything be done to prevent it?
• Is religious belief or aversion to birth control any sort of justification?
• What role if any should abortion have? Should people be paid for having an abortion?
• Should welfare benefits/goverment assistance be reduced to discourage parenthood from being not much more than a welfare benefits lifestyle choice.
• Maybe some people should be paid/rewarded for not having children!

I do not know what the solution is - that is if you even concede there is a problem! Some argue the parents are victims of an unfair society and it is simply an issue of distribution of resources. Personally I think this is disingenuous and naive. I see it as a sad and vicious circle. Some people don't like to hear it - but what we are nurturing and perpetuating is an underclass. Some would prefer to bury their heads - make glib woke statements - and fail to acknowledge what is happening and the consequences.

Going back to the orginal news slot. The reporter was never going to ask the parents "why have you had six young children when clearly you do not have the resourses to adequately provide for them!?" But that is a question that should be asked without apology in my opinion.