The first two comments on this article cause me concern. The best societies take care of the children in their society irrespective of how those children came into being.

How can a society consider itself a just society, if it doesn't at least strive towards offering children equal opportunity?
The two commentators, and any other readers with those thoughts, need to read the German study into social justice in the 31 OECD countries. The chart was first published in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/blow-americas-exploding-pipe-dream.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf

The best six countries were all Northern European, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and The Netherlands. Australia rated 21st, mainly because of its poor level of care for the disadvantaged. The USA rated 27th, only ahead of Chile, Greece, Mexico and Turkey.
Anyone who thinks government and taxes are a burden doesn't realize that without such they themselves would not have benefited form the storehouse of knowledge and the justice that these make available and, if marooned, would have been as "Man Friday" rather than Robinson Crusoe.

I have been lucky enough to have been able to provide well for my (current) retirement years. Part of my ongoing income is from houses let to single mothers at significant discounts from the market rent rates.

I am grateful that I was raised in a family with both parents present and that I was taught, by example, to be charitable.

Petra,

The issues you raise are fair. Single parenting and the dichotomy of required for work vs raising children is not and has not been resolved fairly or adequately.

Where I feel you could improve the argument is, I believe in arguing the point from a whole of society view. Had you not taken women only approach to the issue (there are many single fathers out there in the same situation) you would more broadly attract support. By focusing on the women’s side, you attract the ire of the opposition (so to speak).

If there is something incorrect about this observation, please identify it and I shall reconsider my position.

Foyle
You have completely confused charitable with violence-based transactions.

And you should go right ahead and voluntarily fund all the charitable handouts to single mothers that you think others should be forced into paying. They may have other values they are trying to achieve - values more worthy than yours.

...Good-onya Foyle: A true philanthropist.

I'm more sympathetic than earlier posters even though I believe welfare for 'supporting parents' needs to be tightened.

There are women (and men) who through no fault of their own are left 'holding the baby' and some. On the other hand there are women rorting the system - lots of them. Admittedly most are of low socio-economic status, poorly educated, below average intellect and often come from family backgrounds where welfare dependence is high and they see having a baby, with or without a 'stable' partner as a 'natural' thing. In the face of poor work culture and prospects and an expectation that welfare will support them, having a brat or 2 or 3 or more, often with different fathers seems a fair career choice, and right now policy supports that choice. In between, a lot of people and their kids who will need support for a period of time until they are able to get their lives in order.

While I don't wish to see families disadvantaged there has to be some accountability. I'd suggest encouraging reproductive responsibility by limiting claims for the payment to the number of children the parent has at that time and while that person remains on a welfare payment, no further payment for new additions. To be able to claim for any more children the condition should be to be off welfare at least 12 months. Contraception should be made available free or highly subsidised for these parents.

As a taxpayer all my life I am resentful that some people feel it their right to live off the hard work of others as a lifestyle. As a person with a past career in public health, I've also seen the hardship and struggles of genuine people trying to live on welfare and battling health problems themselves or those of dependents. Perhaps what is needed is less of a "Blanket Approach" and more individual assessment.

I must agree with diver dan regards the obscene amounts of money wasted on illegal immigrants when needy Australians are being hung out to dry.

Need another John Howard ... desperately

It is the feeling of entitlement that comes from this article that gets up my nose.

As a bloke trying to make a living from a farm when some when a couple of my kids were at school, my kids had to miss some school excursions, when money was just not there. However I never thought others should have to kick in for this.

When I think of my kids now struggling to meet mortgage payments, feed & educate their kids, & cover those optional extras the kids would like, & not managing some times, my hackles rise. Why should these women expect to be funded by them, to the things they can’t afford themselves?

I believe the labour of child birth is quite high. However it should not be considered the end of the effort of child rearing, but only the start. It is then beholden of the parents to earn the ongoing costs involved.

Here we have a lady who has used the taxes of many to fund her education, to enable her to achieve a well-paid comfortable existence. I wonder how many taxpayers kids missed out on some of the benefits her kids received courtesy of those very taxpayers who funder her, due to the cost of supporting her & all the others?