Why only two children? Why not four? Or seven?
Cry me a river. Textbook example of the leftist populism. What is always omitted in this sentimental story though is that in order to give money to this... hmmm... irresponsible mother of two the government first should take them from the other mothers with children, the ones who actually work. Pretty interesting perception of justice and equality.
Another interesting thing is that socialists always mix up consequences of free will and conscious choice (i.e. having children, working/not working) and consequences of the events over which a person has no control (i.e. being disabled).
Why is this mother automatically irresponsible? She can have two children when she has a job, when times are good, and then find herself in very difficult circumstances through absolutely no fault of her own - perhaps her husband died or he left her, perhaps destructive capitalism did its wonderful magic, a recession ensued, and her job disappeared. She used up what savings she had and found herself with two children to feed and no job. And yet according to you, this makes her irresponsible. That's not her, that's the system - capitalism is predicated on winners and losers. A society that doesn't recognise this and put provision in place to ameliorate the hardship of the losers in this system is an inhumane one. A society that condemns innocent children, who had no choice in any of these, to a further generation of poverty and want because it holds the parents responsible, is an inhumane one. Call that socialism, dirigisme, or whatever you like, but I call it basic humanity.