The question of who should be supported by the state is always going to be a vexed one, as the vitriol is always reserved for poor families, or more often for poor women who aren't working, often because the cost of childcare would outstrip their earning potential.
What about middle class women who choose not to work to bring up their families more conveniently? They often claim that their husbands pay for their right to health care, pensions, education, security, etc, but realistically, they don't. The structure of the tax system works against that, and in any case, if the husband is a high earner, he should be paying more tax as a matter of course - not to allow another able adult to avoid contributing their own.
There is also the question of who contributes to society by virtue of their occupation (as opposed to earnings). Arguably, a volunteer who pays no tax but does something like hospital visiting is contributing more than a high earner who 'only' produces profit, but how can that be measured?
Even if we could iron out those anomalies, how can an outsider feel able to comment on someone using a food bank when pregnant? We don't know the circumstances of the pregnancy, or the reason for the mother needing to use the food bank, and nor is she under any obligation to tell us, unless we want to go back to Poor Law conditions where those in need had to plead their case to a panel of 'more deserving' citizens.
I wonder how many people who complain about the 'feckless' poor would actually have any moral right to be on that panel if all things were considered.
