I know this is wandering perilously close to NAAFI territory but I wanted to get some serious comments so I'm chancing it. Currently as it stand every time someone on benefits pops out another sprog their payments get increased and they get the possible chance of moving into a bigger house in the future. Which to me seems rather odd since it could be taken as almost encouraging the unemployed to have more kids. Now obviously you can't just say 'Right after you sign on if you have any more kids we're not funding it' since that leaves small children possibly starving, and they've never done anything wrong. So how about we simply say if you want to sign on for unemployment/job-seekers or whatever they're calling it this year you have to agree to regular injections so you can't get pregnant? From what I recall there are injections or getting something implanted nowadays that act as birth control that last for around six months at a time. Hell, they're even working on a male version last I heard. So if you want to sign on then both you and your partner have to get a shot every six months. Thoughts, opinions? Granted I know this is somewhere slightly to the right of Daily Wail territory and I'm not really advocating it myself just yet, but just as a mental exercise I was wondering what arguments for and against the idea people could come up with.