Impact of 2-child benefit cap on abortion decisions

Yes I dont understand maybe it would make feckless men have less children but it still is a policy that void make some children go without and even 1 child going hungry or going without is 1 too many. It’s not the place to make a point to punish adults for their decisions

Really revealing how many on here are the biggest supporters of women in prisons or refuges and homeless hostels when it suits them, but quite happy to let their children go hungry as a form of punishment if they offend them by having too many. At least the toilets in the foodbank might be single sex I guess.

This is all without even touching on the climate/over population arguments. Although I will say it sits a bit uncomfortably that if as part of climate change measures it's poorer women who will be disproportionately expected to cease or limit their reproduction.

It's also a very poor measure to cut emissions. If we really want to be serious about climate change we should be preventing the wealthy from having kids, because its them destroying the planet not single mums living on a pittance. There is a horrifying record of overpopulation measures being used to attack women, up to and including coerced and unsafe sterilisation.

[quote timeforanewstart]@jj1968 we have free education upto 18 and you can get on college courses for free if you only have education up to a certain level[/quote]
You can get on some part time college courses, but very rarely ones which will leave you with any kind of vocational qualification/. More importantly the Jobcenre is likely to insist you leave because you're supposed to be spending every second of your day on jobseeking activity. Plenty of women have had to leave college courses on the verge of qualifying because the Jobcentre bullied them into it under the threat of sanctions.

The 2 child limit is an abomination and its atrocious that people are defending it on a feminist forum.

However the rape clause gives us an astonishing insight into how prevalent rape is. A minimum of 1 in 1000 (0.1%) of third or subsequent children are the result of rape.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/17/data-shows-900-women-in-uk-affected-by-tax-credit-clause?fbclid=IwAR3xJqChtWyI-KmEtp0kF4Ktq7R5xpEKHf_5DRAK-6qgn0yoljiiNQQKbj8

I'd much rather we limited the number of children people had at the "front end" rather than punishing the women and children once the children are here.

We need to make men pay for their careless seed-spreading. No more dodging child maintenance, or letting them pay less than the actual financial burden of raising the child. It's not fair that women have to shoulder this.

Maybe a carrot approach could be that childcare is fully funded for the first two children, instead of any benefits being paid.

I have mixed feelings about this. It's uncomfortable to think women are put in this position as a result of policy but it is something that often happens for women not in receipt of benefits.

I know a young couple that made this choice (about a first accidental pregnancy) due to financial insecurity at the time. Had they been in a better position they absolutely would have wanted to continue the pregnancy.

I also can't help but think having more than two children is a detriment to women that are already disadvantaged. With every child you have life gets exponentially harder. I am a bit biased here because I had 4 children at a fairly young age and whilst I love them dearly (and there are upsides to bigger families) I wish I had understood fully the limitations that come with it. An older, wiser me might have stopped at 2, which is difficult to write because I can't really imagine not having the youngest 2.

Having said that nobody wants, I would hope, a situation whereby women are effectively sanctioned for not wanting an abortion in the case of accidental pregnancy. In many ways I can imagine the decision being more difficult when you already have children because you know what it is deliver a wanted child.

This is all without even touching on the climate/over population arguments. Although I will say it sits a bit uncomfortably that if as part of climate change measures it's poorer women who will be disproportionately expected to cease or limit their reproduction.

This isn’t just a financial decision, it’s a social one too.

The government have always offered incentives and disincentives as a way to try to influence what people do.

It is not good at all for numerous children to be born into financial and emotional instability (coercive control.) Not good for the women and not good for the children.

No one is saying ‘working class women cannot have children.’

@jj1968 ok so what do other european countries pay out ?
I thought many of them were based on what you paid in
Can you give me an example as my friend from a european country said they get a lot less in benefits and was suprised what people could claim here

@PotholeParadies then people really need to think and stick at 2
Its not good to have people depending on state either as cycle often continues

@jj1968 we have free education upto 18 and you can get on college courses for free if you only have education up to a certain level

I totally agree with the cap. No one has to have more than 2 children. The planet is overpopulated and people should not be having so many. It is so common now to have 3 (or even more).

Also when people have children do they never give it any thought? Of course you could lose your job, you could become ill etc. Also so many marriages end in divorce, often mainly due to having children. If you stick to 2 it is easy to cope if disaster strikes.

Everyone should know about the cap so make bloody sure you don't have a third child if you can't afford it. It's pathetic that there are so many "accidents"

Child benefit for subsequent children is 13.70 a week. FSM? One meal a day during term-time.

That is not adequate for children! Why should children suffer like that?

[quote timeforanewstart]@jj1968 we have free education ?
Not uni but that is a choice and there are loans etc to help -
We have quite a generous welfare system compared to many countries and you often find its people in work with mortgages etc that are struggling
More social housing would be helpful as means people wouldn't have to top up rent
But prior to covid these caps had meant more people were working even if part time , this is surely a good thing
Yes maybe temp help for people leaving an abusive situation until back on feet, but cb isnn't capped , fsm I don't believe are capped [/quote]
No we don't have free education, Yoy try getting on a course for anything that isn't the most very basic qualification through the Jobcentre, and you're lucky to get that. You're more likely to be bullied into some kind of unpaid work experience stacking shelves in Asda.

And we have one of the least generous welfare systems in Europe.

[quote timeforanewstart]@fishFingerketchup yes thats a good point. I know a large family on a small income they buy second hand , sell on sites as they look after their stuff , forgo foreign holidays etc etc
Are fsm limited to just 2 children do you know ? [/quote]
Do you have any idea what rents are like in some parts of the country. The benefit cap forced (mostly) women and their kids to be uprooted from their schools and communities to be housed in different cities in some cases, miles away from family, friends and support networks. It has been a horrifying policy that was purely ideological and probably cost more to implement than it saved.

Or, we could just get rid of the cap and trust that few women on benefits, like all other women, want to have child after child for the sake of it.

Pushing families into poverty always costs society more in the end.

@jj1968 we have free education ?
Not uni but that is a choice and there are loans etc to help -
We have quite a generous welfare system compared to many countries and you often find its people in work with mortgages etc that are struggling
More social housing would be helpful as means people wouldn't have to top up rent
But prior to covid these caps had meant more people were working even if part time , this is surely a good thing
Yes maybe temp help for people leaving an abusive situation until back on feet, but cb isnn't capped , fsm I don't believe are capped

If a child is conceived without consent then they are exempt from the 2 child rule, there are several exemptions to the rule

No I think fsm are for as many children as are eligible within a family

@fishFingerketchup yes thats a good point. I know a large family on a small income they buy second hand , sell on sites as they look after their stuff , forgo foreign holidays etc etc
Are fsm limited to just 2 children do you know ?

More education and help to get people out of abusive relationships is better surely , rather than just giving money and people staying

Why not both? Why not a properly funded VAWG sector, free education, proper social housing and a welfare state that ensures a woman who needs to leave will be able to feed her children and access housing when she does?

[quote timeforanewstart]@PotholeParadies there is a rape clause in it , and also abusive men how do you not know this cap hasn't encouraged less children to be born in to an abusive home
More education and help to get people out of abusive relationships is better surely , rather than just giving money and people staying[/quote]
I made quite a long post about this. Please read it then come back to me

@nosswith but he pays for his children , I don't think his partners will be claiming benefits

Given there is a ‘rape clause’ should there also be a clause where contraceptive failure can be proven? For instance you became pregnant despite having an implant inserted? I suppose it would be impossible to deal with claims of the pill or condoms not working but would work for women who become pregnant with the coil/implant/injection