Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

930 replies

RocketQueenP · 21/02/2017 17:07

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 Angry

OP posts:
WildBelle · 21/02/2017 21:24

rocket thanks! You're very welcome to read my dissertation (if I ever finish the feckin thing), if you pm me your email I'll send it to you when it's finished in April.

OCSockOrphanage · 21/02/2017 21:32

I resent any suggestion that I am a racist, or that I want to deny benefits. I do think that everyone has a responsibility to build the society in which they want to live.

That means having the family that you can afford to pay for out of your earned income, with entitlement to education and health care as provided. I understand that shit happens, and that the state needs to fill a gap in places and periods when things go awry. It doesn't mean an open ticket.

jacks11 · 21/02/2017 21:34

On balance, I think YABU. I don't think it's totally straight forward, but on balance I agree with the changes.

My take on it is that there is some personal responsibility in this- I have only the children I feel I can support, both in emotional and financial aspects. I have an income and I have based my family size on that. My wage does not increase if I have more children, I have to manage on what I have. We are financially comfortable, but couldn't afford to have a large family (well we could, but it would mean very little disposable income and no luxuries etc). It is one of the reasons that we don't have a larger family. Most of my friends are in a similar position. Why should benefits be different? It seems reasonable to support up to two children so that low income families have some support to start a family.

Contraception is free and easily accessed for the most part. Yes, there can be mistakes and unplanned pregnancies, although contraceptive failure for most methods is relatively rare (if used properly). Of course, it is very unfortunate for those individuals involved. However, I don't think you can base the tax credits system on the (relatively small) number of couples who will have a genuine contraceptive failure and then feel the only way forward is to have an abortion.

Also, I believed this change only applied to new claimants- so families who already have more than 2 children would not be affected. Is that incorrect?

OneWithTheForce · 21/02/2017 21:35

Can anyone confirm if I am remembering something correctly please? I have this vague recollection that a change to the rules and thresholds of tax credits that is planned for sometime in the next few years would mean that pretty much everyone would become unentitled (if that's even a word?) to them. Is that right? I remember a whole shitstorm and lots of discussion on MN at the time but maybe I am remembering this wrong.

Original poster
RocketQueenP · 21/02/2017 21:38

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

Agreed !!! All these cuts everywhere and yet no sign of any improvement to the NHS, social care, schools etc

Maybe Because they are ideological bollocks!!

OP posts:
space83 · 21/02/2017 21:40

@DistanceCalling I cannot believe you said that. British Nationals and colour???

The OP was citing that the government is in effect causing abortion rates to possibly rise due to in work benefits cuts. Thus meaning that finances become a priority reason for termination. That is not choice. That is eugenics.

@Valentine2 we don't know fully where the taxes are going. None of it appears to be going into infrastructure. As a professional in the NHS is sad to see how much cutting/rationing/back door privatisation is going on. And how little people are aware of it. It's insidious.

So abortion services may well end up being a luxury in the end anyway.

GreenGinger2 · 21/02/2017 21:41

So all those who think those on benefits shouldn't be forced to have the family they can afford believe in a tax cut or extra money for those not on benefits when they choose to have 3,4 or 5 kids. After all they will have to resort to abortions if the 99.9 reliable contraception they use fails to work.

space83 · 21/02/2017 21:44

@GreenGinger2 so you don't think that there is any psychological impact of abortion?

malificent7 · 21/02/2017 21:46

I know op. I agree with you. Mi dibt agree with the inevitabke benefit badhing 'but we work hard and are more responsible than u" types.

minifingerz · 21/02/2017 21:46

"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'"

No - people don't think like this.

But if they know they are not risking a significant worsening of their financial circumstances in growing their family, and may actually be able to temporarily remove the pressure from the benefits office to find a job because their youngest is three then just letting a pregnancy happen or actively trying for a baby becomes vastly more attractive.

OCSockOrphanage · 21/02/2017 21:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

GreenGinger2 · 21/02/2017 21:49

I think anybody fearful of psychological impact will avoid putting themselves at risk from needing to have an abortion.

I really don't think we should carry on handing money willy nilly to couples who choose to have as many kids they feel like.

I'm guessing you are in favour of tax cuts and extra funding for those above benefits when they have more children than they can afford- given your concern re the psychological,impact of abortion.Hmm

KondosSecretJunkRoom · 21/02/2017 21:51

I would suggest that, en masse, children who live in poverty cost society a fortune as it picks up the pieces of disaffected lives with services barely fit for purpose.

If we must march towards a Tory land of economic rationality at every step, it should at least consider the unintended economic domino effect of turning the screw on larger families.

gillybeanz · 21/02/2017 21:51

Here we go again, society hasn't learnt from the past, some of the comments on here are similar to those viewed when children were taken from families who couldn't afford housing or to feed their children.

You don't think it could happen again? Some of you are disgusting and here's a TRUE reminder

Lostwithinthehills · 21/02/2017 21:53

Space83 you sound a bit overexcited when you mention eugenics. I suspect you also don't realise that "Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population." Unless you actually do think the government is deliberately trying to weed out the bloodlines of poor people?!

space83 · 21/02/2017 21:55

@OCSockOrphanage I really don't think you should suggest that you are liberal, or labour. The Corbyn school of thought? What, that society should be fairer? In the process of a couple of posts you have come across as racist and now ageist. Labour doesn't need centre lefters who really should just come out as left right wingers.

What a horrible person you come across as. "Clever people generally earn more than dullards" - that is blatant bollocks. Opportunity allows increased earning potential. Money does not imply cleverness. Clearly that has passed you by.

I'm well into my late 30's/early 40's and I wouldn't want to be as ignorant as you come across in terms of human nature. I'd go Corbyn over a tory pampered tit any day.

GreenGinger2 · 21/02/2017 21:55

So Gilly you do believe in tax cuts and extra cash for those above benefits then?

If I had the size of family I wanted I'd have struggled to provide for them. If being given the resources to have as many children as you want is seen as an entitlement then surely it should run across all sectors of society.

Who should pay for everybody having as many children as they want?

RortyCrankle · 21/02/2017 21:57

I agree with the new rules. Don't have children if you can't afford to pay for them.

Me too. I don't get the entitlement of some people popping out sprogs knowing they will be paid for with benefits - ie other people's hard earned money. Benefits are there for support in emergency situations, not because you fancy multiple children for whom you will never be financially responsible.

Floggingmolly · 21/02/2017 21:58

Clever people generally earning more than dullards is an established, albeit distasteful to some, fact.

Permanentlyexhausted · 21/02/2017 21:58

I would far rather my taxes were spent on the more vulnerable in society, including those with more than 2 children, than on shaving a few minutes off a journey from London to the Midlands, leaving the EU, or building a pointless third runway that we won't need since no one will want to come to the UK once we've Brexited.

roundaboutthetown · 21/02/2017 21:59

I'm still wondering why people assume the change in benefits will result in smaller families rather than poorer families, when evidence from other countries does not seem to indicate any particular link between generosity of benefits and family size? People don't tend to have enormous families in Denmark or Sweden, but fertility rates in the US are higher than the OECD average, benefits mean, and child poverty rates very high.

Chickennuggetfeeder · 21/02/2017 22:00

Can i ask why so many people think those who get tax credits dont work! Dp and i work our asses off but as pay is so shit these days we get a slight top up of tax credits.

BonnyScotland · 21/02/2017 22:00

I'm highly suspicious of the motives for this Thread... Is the 'friends pregnancy termination thanks to Tax Credit Cuts' even REAL ?

Now the OP has admitted she's is actively writing a Paper on this very subject.... are we merely the Societys Opinion for an Academic Paper.. to save the writer doing any actual leg work....

just a thought .....................

Chickennuggetfeeder · 21/02/2017 22:00

Oh and forgot to say i believe people shouldnt have more children than they can afford but no one knows whats round the corner.

space83 · 21/02/2017 22:03

@Lostwithinthehills eugenics was a train of thought that really has no place in society. It is akin to fascism. It delineates people along the lines of usefulness in terms of genetic capacity. It is not a word used lightly. It is abhorrent a concept.

In terms of overexcitedness it makes me so angry to think that people genuinely believe they have no collective responsibility towards improving society. If that makes me passionate about social justice yes. If that makes me damn good at my job, great.

I'm not going to sit in judgment over peoples choices but people should have a free choice - not an illusion of one. That is the bug bear.

@GreenGinger2 I'm not. I think abortion needs to be a rationalised choice based on the individual circumstances. I think that psychological factors long term need to be looked at - - its all very well having an abortion at whatever age based on the individual looking at the whole but I think being forced into a situation where your only 'choice' is purely financial is illusory. Financial circumstances change. They are not concrete. And they shouldn't therefore take precedence.