What’s worse in your opinion?

[Anonymous]

1. A married couple having a baby but not being able to properly afford it and rely on government assistance

2. An unmarried couple having a baby but able to afford it without relying on government assistance

[Screenwriter]

Neither. Goverment assistance is not something most people have for a lifetime. It might be a bridge until they get a better job, or they recover from an illness. There are a million reasons why someone is on assistance.

It doesn't matter if a couple having a child is married or not married as long as they make legal plans to address the possibility that they might not be together in the future, and how they'll split up their assets and who will take care of the child or children.

[itsannalee]

People who need government assistance to feed their kids shouldn’t have kids

[slatyb]

The people in government making it impossible for couples to afford children.

[Kingofkings1992]

Number 1 is worse in my opinion. Only archaic people will disagree

[Agape93]

1. Either you're irresponsible or entitled, and now I have to pay for your crotch goblins upkeep. Or, you're stuck in an area where you couldn't abort it, in which case your lawmakers should foot the bill, not me.

[Apulu_backagain]

1st.

What's the point of child can't live like a child?

[Apulu_backagain]

*if.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

They’re about the same, in both cases they struggle to afford the child they agreed to raise

[loveyouoak]

1. A married couple having a baby but not being able to properly afford it and rely on government assistance

[Anonymous]

I prefer a couple that loves the child and want to put thier heart and soul into raising that child. In the words of John Lennon, "all you need is love".

[Staximus]

Having a baby you can't afford is worse, it's just plain stupid

[Nikki1989]

Number one.

[MasterKS]

First one.