To think that if the government cap benefits at two children need to make abortions easier to access...

[foreverondiet]

And also to allow for those where (semi-)permanent long term contraception lets them down? (Am thinking about things like mirena / coil / implant / vasectomy, not the pill or condoms where there can be user error, ie forgetting to use etc)

Whilst I do agree in principle with the benefits cap at a certain number of children, I also think that some people are totally responsible with contraception but get caught out. Also abortions aren't always easy to access (and totally reasonably some woman wouldn't want one).

Just struggling to see how this would work?

you get child benefit for every child so you will get more, except the govt are trying to stop that as part of their policy of punishing people for being poor.

I would imagine they would have exceptions for multiple births.

Without wanting to stick my head over the parapet in a really brief post... I do think it's unfair that people with no way of supporting their children rely on the state to pay for them.It's irresponsible to the child and to society. So there.

I'm not sure, it's not as if CB is enough to make a huge difference- I doubt anyone thinks, oh, hang on, I'll have 8, and live on CB. It's surely not practical?! (happy to be corrected btw)

if you can "comfortably" afford two you can certainly stretch to three! but that's beside the point. This thread implies that if there's a cap there would be a mass run on abortion clinics - that kind of notion is just juvenile.

Well what are the choices?

What should happen to people who have two kids, are on benefits (whether employed or unemployed) then get pregnant with a third?

Benefits too high? just get em all to abort! Vile.

This cap is another way the gov are socially engineering society alongside the tax breaks for married couples however most benefit is,I believe from reading other threads, paud to people who are in work. I think these measures are devisive and far from the feeling of all of us being in it together panders to divide and rule and setting the rich against the poor.

Waffly

What should happen?
Fuckin nothin, leave them be

I should say, leave us be. That was me 9 years ago, although technically Tax credits weren't a benefit then, strangely enough.
I never thought I'd see the day when I was considered a scrounger, that was reserved for those out of work. (Not that I thought like that)
I was/ am a sahm ans apparently scrounger too.

Sorry Waffly.

I am not mad with you, at all and my tone wasn't mad when I wrote it. Just re read and sounds like I'm having a go at you

It's disgusting that you are seen as a scrounger or that people who are out of work are seen as scroungers.

It's vile rhetoric that sees us fighting for crumbs at the rich man's table.

Divide and conquer and all that.

Hear hear