Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
BakeOffBiscuits · 22/02/2017 09:09

"In the future only the rich will be able to have large families. Social Engineering"

No, that isn't right. Millions of people already think they aren't wealthy enough to have a large family and they plan accordingly.

In my social circle and family, I know very few people with 3 children and only one couple have 4 children, (they are extremely wealthy). The vast, vast majority have either one or two children.
It's got nothing to do with some 'master plan' or 'social engineering', as you suggest and everything to do with having the number of children you can provide for. (If this includes help with tax credits, then fine, but why should the tax payer pay for someone to have 5 children, when I and millions of others cant afford to have 5 dc, as we don't get 'help'.

RainbowsAndUnicorn · 22/02/2017 09:15

It seems to come as a huge shock to many that if they lose their job or their partner leaves, they will still have the children's costs to contend with. Are people really that nieve? Life has many ups and downs but many obviously feel that nothing will ever happen to them so keep having children and then moan when it all goes pear shaped.

The change is a token gesture, it goes nowhere near enough. People will still be irresponsible. It's like the benefits cap, it just takes one adult to work sixteen hours and it doesn't apply, it doesn't stop those people so I doubt this one will either.

RufusTheSpartacusReindeer · 22/02/2017 09:23

I dont think anyone has said its impossible to avoid babies

Just that accidents can happen

Very good point brag

MuseumOfCurry · 22/02/2017 09:24

In the future only the rich will be able to have large families. Social engineering. They don't want the 'oinks' out breeding the elite?

I'm struck by the level of hysteria on this thread. Can anyone explain the inadequacy of having only two children? Is this not a 'real' family?

DistanceCall · 22/02/2017 09:26

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.

Your post was placing British "unborn children" above living, existing migrants, Fourbeasts. Who, by the way, can be told to start using contraception once they get to Britain.

DistanceCall · 22/02/2017 09:27

Oh, and there are already far too many people in the world. As PPs have said, what is the problem with having "just" two children, particularly if you can't fucking afford more?

BakeOffBiscuits · 22/02/2017 09:30

I'm struck by the level of hysteria on this thread

Me too. There are some valid points being made re this change, but it's difficult to find them among the hysteria and exaggeration.

WhippinPiccadilly1 · 22/02/2017 09:38

Rainbows Really? People should plan as if they were going to raise children alone? So, you mean, almost no one should have children. Because that's the reality.

The vast majority of single parents are entitled to tax credits, particularly if they have childcare costs.

WhippinPiccadilly1 · 22/02/2017 09:39

If I had to wait until I could afford children no matter what happened, I'd be infertile. Women can't wait until their 50's to start a family.

expatinscotland · 22/02/2017 09:39

Men should be restricted to 2 children as well. That's the part that niggles me.

FillySucker · 22/02/2017 09:39

DistanceCall Wed 22-Feb-17 09:27:33 Oh, and there are already far too many people in the world. As PPs have said, what is the problem with having "just" two children, particularly if you can't fucking afford more?

Oh I wish there was a like button! summed up perfectly

Charley50 · 22/02/2017 09:41

OhTheRoses - your circumstances might change. The welfare part of your taxes includes pensions.
If you got certain medical conditions you will be using the NHS.
Did you give birth privately too? If there was a complication you would have been sent to an NHS hospital.
Don't kid yourself that you don't use any of the taxes you pay in.

MuseumOfCurry · 22/02/2017 09:43

There are some valid points being made re this change, but it's difficult to find them among the hysteria and exaggeration.

Yes. And to the left-wing fascists on the thread who like to call people racist and thick etc - you are responsible for the rise of Donald Trump et al.

Just so you know, my reaction to your posts is that I have to consciously drag myself back from the far right, where I really don't want to be.

I have a lot of empathy for the desire to have a baby. I don't believe it should become the preserve of the wealthy. But I am sickened at the comments suggesting that 2 children for a low-income family is not good enough. Please get some perspective ASAP.

MuseumOfCurry · 22/02/2017 09:44

Men should be restricted to 2 children as well. That's the part that niggles me.

Aren't they, though?

Lostwithinthehills · 22/02/2017 09:45

They don't want the 'oinks' out breeding the elite?

Surely the oiks have outnumbered the elite since the beginning of time? The elite need there to be plenty of people below them in the socio economic scale. Who else farms the fields, weaves the textiles, fights the wars?

RainbowsAndUnicorn · 22/02/2017 09:48

Nobody needs three children. If two aren't enough, then the person has more issues than just money.

Expat, I agree it should apply to fathers too. Hopefully it will at some point as more and more changes will be forthcoming I expect.

splendide · 22/02/2017 09:53

Are men and women treated differently in this expat? That can't be right can it?

MuseumOfCurry · 22/02/2017 09:56

Are men and women treated differently in this expat? That can't be right can it?

It would be illegal, surely.

I think what Expat must be referring to is the practice of men fathering children with one woman, then with other women while the subsequent post-2 children remain eligible because they're NRPs and the first set of tax credits go to the first partner?

CatsBatsEars · 22/02/2017 09:56

The biggest portion of the benefits bill is pensions, 42%.

splendide · 22/02/2017 09:58

Oh yes I see Curry. It'll be per claim I guess. Doesn't that disadvantage men though? If a man with no children moves in with a woman with 2 then he won't be able to get tax credits for his first child? Could reverse the sex there but my example is much much more common.

I honestly don't know if that's the case.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 22/02/2017 10:09

I think claiming people are bitter, broken on the inside and hoping Trump will press the red button is OTT

You're right of course, but as with the charming "thick ignorant c*s" comment, if others fail to bow down to their point of view some posters just resort to abuse instead Sad

MuseumOfCurry · 22/02/2017 10:11

Oh yes I see Curry. It'll be per claim I guess. Doesn't that disadvantage men though? If a man with no children moves in with a woman with 2 then he won't be able to get tax credits for his first child? Could reverse the sex there but my example is much much more common.

To do otherwise would be to financially reward people having children with more than one person. Surely there's no public support for that.

OhTheRoses · 22/02/2017 10:14

Charley where did I say I didn't use anything I've paid in? Why do you assume I'd use the NHS for some illnesses.

RufusTheSpartacusReindeer · 22/02/2017 10:17

very few people in the uk go completely private

There are some obviously Smile

Batteriesallgone · 22/02/2017 10:17

Whip I think the awful thing about your situation is how low paid midwives are. I know there's no appetite for this generally but how I wish midwives, nurses, teachers etc were better paid.

The trouble with this move is I agree in principle with the idea of not providing state help to have more than 2 children. However I don't agree at all with the structure of society atm with so few people earning shedloads and so many barely scraping by. So I might think I agree with the move but I would never want someone like Whip to get their benefits reduced.

I don't know what the solution to all this is. Vote Corbyn I guess.

Swipe left for the next trending thread