There is a huge debate in this subject in particular. For me personnaly , I beleive that women need to be responsible for their actions . Most single mothers weren't left by men and are not widows. They chose to have children with no husband or the resources necessary to support themselves and a child. Providing them welfare provides incentive for their irresponsible actions.

Women who are widows or do have their husbands leave them deserve welfare. Women who have children without resources are selfish and hurt their children along with society in general. Not every single mother deserves welfare! Yes, there are single mothers out there that need help. However, not every single mother NEEDS to be put on welfare. Some women are poor and some women are rich. Just because someone is a single parent does not mean they need help. The government needs to give welfare to the women who need it, not to the women who think they need it.

I don't think all single women have kids because they know they can scam the system, but I think a significant proportion of lower income women see it as their only means of support. It encourages the under class to proliferate itself, unfortunately. Seriously, if they knew it was going to be a financial responsitiblity to have kids, maybe they would think twice about it and not contribute to the ills of our society by having yet more kids who will repeat the pattern of only taking but not giving to society. Let's face it, we don't need to encourage people to have more kids that will only grow up in poverty and end up coming to no good. It just repeats a vicious circle.

I think there are a lot of assumptions underpinning the question. In the UK all parents receive child support, single parents or otherwise. For richer parents this is a little extra, for those less well of it is vital. Giving it to everyone rather than means testing it helps to underpin the idea that raising children is something the state supports for any parent, regardless of wealth.

One common asumption is that providing money to poorer parents who don't work will only encourage them not to work and create a spiral of worklessness. While there are communities with families who haven't worked in literally generations, a quick look at countries without benefits nets will show that poverty traps exist there too and the need to take responsibility for your actions does anything but prevent the bearing of more children. In fact, the trend tends to be, that as country, or even individuals, wealth and aspiration rises the birth rate falls.

Those who would rather withdraw money from 'feckless' single mothers would probaby be uncomfortable with spendning more money on these mothers to give them more opportunities but the statistics seem to suggest this would be the bes way to prevent higher birth rates and more intergenerational poverty.

In the UK, welfare isn't given out automatically if you are a single mother, only if you meet the criteria for receiving governmental help, i.e. don't have enough income to cover your costs. (Although the parents/carers of all children in the UK receive a small amount of child tax credits per child, regardless of income). Therefore, it would be stunningly unfair to cut the benefits of single mothers, just for being a single mother. What could she then do to cover her rent and feed herself and her family? There is certainly a poverty trap where the cost of rent and childcare is so high in some parts of the UK that parents struggle to earn enough to cover it, and so find that they make less money when they are working than when they receive benefits. This doesn't mean that benefits should be cut, however, but that wages should be raised and rents lowered. What is a disgrace is not single mothers but greedy landlords and employers who rely on government benefits to make up the shortfall.