A prenatal grant could improve child health, yet critics warn it may fuel “baby farming.” Should children suffer for adults’ motives?
King Solomon, so the story goes, demonstrated his wisdom when he had to decide which of two women was the mother of a baby both claimed was theirs.
He ordered that the child be cut in half… prompting one of the women to shout out that her opponent should have the child.
Clearly, that was the real mother, prepared to lose her baby rather than see it die.
It would take the wisdom of the ancient monarch, though, to mull over the suggestion by health NGOs that an additional grant be introduced for pregnant mothers – in addition to the allowance paid once a child is born.
Those advocating for it believe that if a mother is able to afford food to feed herself properly during pregnancy, the child will be much healthier.
ALSO READ: Proposed policy aims to extend child support grant to pregnant women
In the end, they calculate, the grant would cost the state R2 billion, but save almost R14 billion in public health costs associated with malnourishment.
Opponents, though, say another grant will merely encourage more “baby farming”, where women and girls get pregnant to access state grant money.
There may be some truth in that argument – but then why punish the child because of the motive behind its conception?
Doesn’t a baby deserve the best?
