Not sure I agree with that one. Where do you draw the line? If you feed somone else's children, then the parents just spend more money on instant gratification. The more you subsidize their expenses, the more money they have to spend irresponsibly. You can't have a serious country and let children go without health care? You can't have a serious country and let children go without dental care? Can't have a serious country and let children go withotu new clother? shoes?
Just because some liberal redistributionist is hiding behind the children, doesn't mean that we should instantly surrender.
There are only two reasons that people don't have enough money. 1. Misfortune, and 2. Irresponsibility. Misfortune (like catastrophic health costs) is by far the less common reason that people go on welfare.
Remember when the standard morality was that you didn’t have kids unless you could afford them?
And men didn’t consider themselves equipped to marry unless they could afford the kids that were presumed to follow.
Add in the rest of the morality of the time, and you had a darned good incentive for men to find a way to make a good wage.