To think the abortion rate will increase after April this year?

[RocketQueenP]

When the new rules on tax credits / universal credit come in ie when no one can claim benefit be it top up or otherwise for any more than 2 children

Sadly I am helping a good friend cope who has just had an early abortion, she did not plan the pregnancy and one of the main reasons is she and her DH are low earners/ They already have 2 at school, and won't be able to afford to have this baby. She is devastated and has admitted they could have squeezed another DC in if it wasn't for the new rules. I think this will happen a lot. :(

In times gone by people would adopt out children that were unplanned that they couldn't afford and I really feel that this is what we are headed back to. Not adoption but, you get my drift

I also think the government fully know this and its one of the reasons they have brought it in. Simple population control

Jesus there are some hateful, spiteful w@nkers on this thread....we are taljlking about feeding and clothing children ffs!

yes we are - but it's high time that personal responsibility made a comeback

I have every sympathy with Gertrude. There will be a very small minority who'll fall through the cracks of every system, unfortunately.

Most migrants have a very strong work ethic so less likely to need benefits long term,hardly a drain. I suspect the same rules will apply for their subsequent children.

Couldn't agree more, GreenGinger

Most migrants have a very strong work ethic...and Britain's indigenous poor do not?

It's not about work ethic GreenGinger2 its about having to have an abortion based on finances.

Nothing psychologically damaging there then. Eh?

I'd love to know how many people have sat down and said/thought 'I know, let's have that third child because, fuck it, it's what we are entitled to, we will get extra tax credits/income support/housing benefit. We will be rolling in it and let's let every other fucker pay for it hahaha silly fools'. You are deluded if you think that is the thought process amongst the majority of people.

Having 3 DC's is hard work. I thought about it long and hard (it was going to be 4dc's and even on our 50k household income it was daunting) but terminating my DS's twin sisters seemed too much to bear. I didn't plan or envisage on having to access tax credits but I HAD to. The thought of the majority of you judging me and thinking 'Why should I be funding your 3' when I work FT and contribute to society (I work for the NHS) makes me really sad about the state of humanity.

Great to see another benefit bashing thread about "hard working families" vs the feckless poor.

Because that is what this thread is essentially about.

I dont get why so many people are upset about providing for children but are quite happy to pay tax for Trident, Buckingham palace refurbs, the royals in general and Trump state visits.

Fourbeasts, this is not, or wasn't, an anti immigration thread. Please do not derail it.

Seems like the government want mainly rich educated types to breed to secure long term economic prosperity in the U.K. Just a thought.

Nope. At the moment the only people who can afford to have multiple children are the very rich and those who are workless or on minimum wage. Those on minimum wage have to work either 16 hours (if single) or 24 hours (if a couple) to avoid the benefit cap. They are then entitled to quite a lot of top-ups including, housing benefit, council tax support, child tax credits, working tax credits, child benefit, discounted prescriptions, special water/gas/electricity tariffs for low earners etc and they pay no tax or national insurance since their salaries are so low. They often end up with the same amount of money as people in higher paid jobs who are working a 40 hour week when factoring in taxes and national insurance but only have to work a 3 day week (or less) to get a similar income.

The people who can't afford to have children these days are middle income earners who earn a little bit too much to be entitled to any benefit help but don't earn enough to be able to live comfortably.

I think most will tighten their belts if they can, others will be thrown into poverty.
I doubt the abortion rate will grow.

"The USSR used mandatory abortion in lieu of contraception for 50 years, or thereabouts. Just saying"

What relevance has this to this thread?

I support taking in and supporting refugee families who are fleeing war and terror in the same way as we should support any British national family such as Gertrudes who is in need of help.

How is it that some of you welcome migrants with open arms, knowing that their concomitant large families will be a burden on the infrastructure of this country, yet you would like to see the poorest British nationals forced to limit their children to two?

Migrants are already existing people. Unborn children do not exist yet. There's a difference.

Ah, but of course, "British nationals" tend to be of a different colour than migrants, don't they.

It just shows how effective the Tory mentality and rhetoric has infiltrated our society.

Of yeah... lets not forget we have to pay tax for Brexit too.... something that i didnt vote for but as a country we stand to shell out billions for it.

As a gard working lone parent i bet i will feel those taxes more than the wealthy elite.

I'd love to know how many people have sat down and said/thought 'I know, let's have that third child because, fuck it, it's what we are entitled to, we will get extra tax credits/income support/housing benefit. We will be rolling in it and let's let every other fucker pay for it hahaha silly fools'. You are deluded if you think that is the thought process amongst the majority of people

Agreed Gertrude!! What is wrong with people?? ffs

Oh and Malificent I did not start this thread to benefit bash far from it!! I am NOT in support of these cuts

Wow, benefits bashing and racism all in one thread!

From a slightly different perspective, current and recent funding for children has meant that I'm probably going to have to give up work.
I work in a highly specialised public sector role which requires many years of training and experience and which is experiencing a national recruitment and retention crisis.
My partner works in the private sector and earns a substantial salary by comparison to me.
We had ivf/icsi treatments for 7 years to get our first two children which we considered to be our complete family. During this time I went down to part time work and we received child benefit for our first child. It then became means tested and we no longer received it either for our first child or our second which wasn't a massive issue but was a second hit as I'd already taken a cut in salary by going part time.
We were told categorically by multiple specialists that there was no chance of either of us causing a pregnancy but lo and behold, a surprise natural third child came along! Our house is now really rather too small for all of us but we can't really afford to move and don't want to uproot our two eldest from settled school and nursery places. However, third child will mean a nursery and wraparound childcare bill of over £1200 per month when I return to work part time which is only literally a few pounds short of what I actually earn. We don't qualify for extended 30 hours nursery funding as partner's earnings are slightly over the threshold. Friends of ours with three children who both earn just under the threshold do qualify despite having almost double the combined income we do.
We are incredibly fortunate that DP has a great job but our third child will potentially mean me giving up a job I've trained for and worked within for over 20 years and which is desperate for recruitment and retention. I'm not in any way saying 'woe is me' but just pointing out that third or subsequent children who are not planned mean that you do have to cut your cloth accordingly. We qualify for nothing (and I'm not saying we should) and have had to make significant changes to our work and family arrangements and if anything happened to dp then I don't know how I'd cope financially. We didn't plan to have three and I do feel so sad that I'll have to give up all of my training, experience and expertise due to finances (which seems utter madness) but such is life. It just seems bonkers that cuts to child and family related benefits seem to actually be making life more difficult for everyone regardless of income. It'd be interesting to see if anyone is actually better off or whether we've all taken a hit.

mother

You are wrong, only certain people would be entitled to all that benefit irrespective of low income.
I know as we have always been a low income family.
A mortgage won't get you housing benefit, and we have never been entitled to lower utilities.
Maybe the very poor get these, but not just because of low income.
Whatever made you think they did?

Actually, most people aren't particularly happy for their taxes to be spent on those things either, malificent

Exactly Mother- can we have a tax cut and extra CB so we can have more DC too?

If people choose to have an abortion or not to, the government really isn't and cannot be held responsible. Government is not for I g people to choose or not to choose abortion - people have to make that choice for themselves and are responsible for their own choices.

We live in a society where government does provide tax credits and child benefit and other support too - it is not that all support has suddenly been removed. It is not that support for existing children is being removed.

Isn't the simple fact that the government cannot afford the welfare bill? Isn't the simple fact that cuts have to be made in a number of areas? Schools are having budgets reduced as are pretty much every other department. The cuts referred to on this thread are just one of those cuts. government isn't saying that people shouldn't be able to have any children. They are saying that there is a limit to the support they can provide. Isnt that rational? And for anyone who thinks unlimited children should be funded from now on, how would you suggest it is paid for? because surely that is the question, not just if they should be funded.

If a person chooses to have an abortion - it is their choice. It is not the government telling them to do it or forcing them to. People choose to have sex and we all know that no contraception is 100% reliable and have to live with that consequence. We have to accept that government can provide so much support but resources are limited and so the support must be too - isn't it simple maths really?

Thank you for replying flogging

To everyone here who said it's not state's job to pay for children: please tell me where in the world my taxes are going? I want to see new housing, NHS maintained and schools and infrastructure maintained if not developed further.
I DO want to see where the hell is half the income of my household is going. Until we know that, please be polite and stay quite instead of being all patronising.

No contraception is 100%. Accidental pregnancies happen, all over the world, and there is a lot of evidence that providing a good social security net reduces the abortion rate because many many abortions are the result of women feeling unable to continue with a pregnancy for financial reasons.

I'm genuinely not interested in reducing rates of abortion. It's none of my business.