Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
OCSockOrphanage · 21/02/2017 22:31

Not abandoning the thread, but feeling rubbish, have cold. Away to bed. Good night participants.

TeaCake5 · 21/02/2017 22:32

Stealth boast post of the day there space.

AndNowItsSeven · 21/02/2017 22:32

"I t is not that support for existing children is being removed"
Yes Chocolate it is.

SanityAssassin · 21/02/2017 22:33

People can have more than 2 children - difference is they will have to pay for them themselves.

So 'richer' people will be OK but curiously most 'richer' people I know have 1 or 2 (3 at a push)

sleepy16 · 21/02/2017 22:34

Why stop at tax credits? If people need to take personal responsibility for paying for their children then they should pay for their schooling and health care and prescriptions,eye tests etc.
After all why should people that have no children pay for your children.
All swings and roundabouts isnt it?

SuperBeagle · 21/02/2017 22:35

Statistically, high earners tend to have less children than those earning less. So all of those, "So people earning more should get to have as many kids as they want, while we have to limit ourselves?!?!" people are kicking off about something that is not supported by facts.

AndNowItsSeven · 21/02/2017 22:37

OCSock not after November 2018 she wouldn't.

Zafodbeeblbrox10 · 21/02/2017 22:38

The gov takes the piss.. And everyone else fights amongst themselves.. What's new?

DixieNormas · 21/02/2017 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AbernathysFringe · 21/02/2017 22:39

Absolutely agree that financial circumstances shouldn't take precedence over all else. They are changeable. As someone who grew up poor, I find it odd that some might find it preferential to not exist than to exist with financial struggles. But it's their choice to prioritise. What's wrong is the idea of HAVING to cap your family because with more than two children you might not be able to eat, in this country. We should look after people, people who make mistakes or reckless choices but especially people who are the product of those mistakes.

witsender · 21/02/2017 22:39

I know a lot of very wealthy families, many of whom have lots of kids. That's appropos of nothing though really. And to start pondering why the 'lower' social classes have lots of kids would mean an in depth look at what drives people to procreate. Tax credits aren't all that much so it certainly isn't ill gotten gains from the government...Maybe a sense of belonging and need in a society that turns its nose up at them?

Meh. I work for a Foodbank. We're going to be busier than ever so I guess my job is secure

malificent7 · 21/02/2017 22:44

I got pregnant on the morning after pill.
My cousin got pregnant on the pill.
We both kept our vabies. We both work ft and get tax credits. We are grateful.

SuperBeagle · 21/02/2017 22:45

I got pregnant on the morning after pill.

Er... do you mean "despite taking" the morning after pill? The MAP isn't a method of contraception...

BakeOffBiscuits · 21/02/2017 22:46

Say someone has 3 children, how much will they miss out on, when this rule comes into effect?

newnamenew · 21/02/2017 22:46

So what about disabled people, unable to work and receiving DLA/PIP? Should they too be unable to have a third child? As clearly working people would be paying for them to have said third kid?

AvaCrowder · 21/02/2017 22:47

I thought I was pregnant with a much unwanted child, a few years back, it would have been dc4 our house wouldn't have got bigger, my job was really new, I would have taken maternity leave and gone back. Baby didn't materialize, I would have had it money withstanding or not. For me our unplanned baby was a thing, even though it was a financial drag. I still would have.

SuperBeagle · 21/02/2017 22:48

So what about disabled people, unable to work and receiving DLA/PIP? Should they too be unable to have a third child?

Well, I'd say it'd be just as irresponsible for a disabled person/someone incapable of working to have a third child as it would be for someone who can't afford it while working. They're effectively the same. No one needs a third child, and simply wanting one isn't a good enough reason to have one.

FourBeasts · 21/02/2017 22:50

Distance, you are being deliberately goady. My post was not denigrating migrants but questioning why one cohort are permitted to have multiple children which we are happy as a country to pay for, yet another cohort (poor British nationals) are told to be thankful for the two children they have and not to come cap in hand to government if they deign to have more.

jacks11 · 21/02/2017 22:52

I think some posters are going a bit far, here. I think claiming people are bitter, broken on the inside and hoping Trump will press the red button is OTT.

I don't think there is any suggestion that people with a child who have a multiple pregnancy should be forced to have selective abortion.

I also think there is some protection (albeit not perfect) for those women who conceive a third child after rape or coercive control/DV (as long as they have left their partner). I understand the rules about proof are a bit unclear, but I did read that the 'third party" evidence could be very vague.

I have sympathy for women like Gertrude who find themselves in difficult circumstances following DV. So yes, I would agree more support services should be available for women and children in these circumstances.

Tax credits are, to my understanding, not solely an "in work" benefit- thought you could claim child tax credits without working? The working tax credit element is obviously only for those who work. Admit that I am not totally sure re UC.

Like a PP, I haven't totally bought into the Tory line about austerity and I do believe in the welfare state. I am happy to pay taxes and for those taxes to go to support others, I would pay more if there was a good argument put forward and I was sure it would be go into services. I agree that many big businesses and wealthy individuals are getting away with not paying their fair share. I would also agree that the cuts to local government/community services, to education budgets and the NHS have had terrible impacts on the most vulnerable. I am glad the welfare state exists.

On the other hand, I think that that the continuation of the welfare state relies on everyone buying into it. This means that there has to be fairness to all, as far as is possible. One aspect of this is that people should take responsibility for the decisions they make and in turn, they should be supported in times of need. Having children that you can't financially support when there is access to free contraception and abortion is a responsibility in my view. I understand that there will be some people have a genuine contraceptive failure but no system can ever work perfectly for every possible exception.

A PP said "I agree that people fall on hard times and the state should step in as safety net to properly support families of all sizes when this happens, but to start from a position where if you are receiving benefits you're not restricted from planning your family in the same way as a family who rely on wages only seems unfair to me" pretty much sums up what I think.

Permanentlyexhausted · 21/02/2017 22:54

I've been using contraception for 20 years and haven't had any scares or accidents but I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I truly believe though if you dont want to get pregnant you will use any means possible, which is free, to make sure it doesn't happen. We are only now in a position to afford a baby and I'm 35, hopefully I will conceive but if I don't then we will cross that bridge.
How can anyone not give any thought to how they will afford a child , I've worked hard all my days and never claimed a penny.

But you and many others on this thread are making assumptions based purely on your own experiences. It requires a little bit of imagination to put yourself in the shoes of someone whose life experiences are very different. Not everyone has the same opportunity of access to information about contraception. Not everyone is in a relationship where they have autonomy over their own bodies. Some people just live chaotic lives - often because that's all they've known since childhood. How will greater deprivation help those people to make better choices? It won't. Welfare cuts will only serve to perpetuate the problem.

mothertruck3r · 21/02/2017 23:02

babybythesea -

  1. The cap is not retrospective so a family with 3 or more kids now won't be affected.

  2. There is a provision that the cap is enforced on 3rd pregnancies rather than 3rd etc births so that a woman who becomes pregnant with twins or triplets etc in her second pregnancy is not subject to the 2 child cap.

TiredBum · 21/02/2017 23:03

This reply has been deleted

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

MichaelSheensNextDW · 21/02/2017 23:05

the people who just have children for the "benefits" seriously need to be culled

Culled, you say?

Hannah4banana · 21/02/2017 23:07

I'm not sure how someone who has already had 2 kids doesn't know how it works. Sex = babies. I would never tell anyone how many kids they could have but there is a social and parental responsibility. Maybe more education is the key but by baby 3 I'm sure they could teach the lecturer a few things.

babybythesea · 21/02/2017 23:07

That's interesting, mothertruck3r, about it being pregnancies rather than babies that will be taken into account.
I haven't really looked into it, but I thought it was an interesting case study as it shows how all the planning in the world can't always help you when it comes to children and finances.