IDS latest women-bashing plans

It's not the child's fault if her or his parents are feckless. How is punishing a child fair?

I think removing it from the first child from every family might be a better option.

And if women are indeed more welfare-dependent, then that is something that needs to be tackled by means other than continuing at any cost any particular payment.

Is IDS Ian Duncan-Smith, my ma says that political parties are not allowed to use civil servants in regards to vote garnering, so I think you mean political aides as opposed to civil servants, she has worked in the civil service for the past twenty nine years.
And yes I don't think it is in any way a conspiracy theory to be able to see that this policy will have a far greater impact on women and children, than it will do on men.

It is nobody else's responsibility to pay for my children's upbringing than mine. If I want more, I pay for them. Contraception is free (I think), and so the majority of unplanned pregnancies are avoidable. For those that occur through other circumstances, women quite rightly have the option of abortion. The overwhelming opinion on here is that every woman has the right to abortion and the right to autonomy over her own body. Therefore, how many women actually have to follow a pregnancy through to full term?

I am pretty left-wing. I have never voted anything other than labour in my life, but I am not so ideologically blind that I cannot see that merit in this proposal.

When Labour introduced Family Allowances, it was for every child, except the eldest. This basically meant that the state was willing to support every subsequent child, no matter how many you had.

Why is this woman-bashing? Because it is women who get pregnant, planned or unplanned, it is women who bear the costs of having children, usually in terms of unpaid domestic work and the gender pay gap, it is women who are overwhelmingly single parents. Plus, if you remove state support, you make it harder for women to leave abusive partners, you make it harder for them to have a genuine choice about what to do if they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy and so on.

But more than that, it is child-bashing. More children will grow up in poverty, or their mothers will be forced into abortion because of the fear of poverty. And so on.

When Labour first introduced the Family Allowance, back in the 1940s, it was not for every child.

Are the very founding fathers of the welfare state also "women bashers"?

Why is this woman bashing?

I think MN reflects the mood of the nation rather than vice versa. It is the end of the culture of something for nothing and a resentment from those who do or have worked hard against those who have never worked and feel the state (I.E other people's hard work) is responsible for their wellbeing.

Money has always been a factor in family planning. We are/were considering a third and although objectively well off, the financial cost is always a factor in the conversation. Why should some people not feel the same pressure if their lifestyle is entirely (or partially) supported by the state?

I understand the argument that it is unfair to penalise an innocent child for being born but the alternative is infinite support for whatever size family someone chooses or giving very specific support for the child which takes the support away from general family expenditure (coupons for essentials, for instance). I would support that but believe many would find it controlling.

Is it really a "right" to have as many children as someone wants regardless of being able to support them? I know we need young people but not regardless of the demographic.