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:
DanGleballs · 23/02/2017 12:23

Maternity pay in this country really isn't that bad. We don't hate families! Child benefit, tax credits, childcare vouchers, free school meals, free health care, schooling etc. They aren't bringing in some sort of Chinese one child policy with tax penalties and forced abortions. It simply means that if you have a third child you will need to make any benefits you claim stretch further.

MuseumOfCurry · 23/02/2017 12:24

I think it's incredibly flippant to label abortion as being automatically either very damaging on the one hand or a walk in the park on the other.

Emotionally, perhaps. Physically, abortion is far less risky than childbirth and is a very straightforward procedure.

I am of course speaking of an early abortion.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid · 23/02/2017 12:28

we can't, however, deny that the govt have an agenda when it comes to childcare / working parents and the agenda is not on what is best for individual families or even what is most cost effective to the state

I wouldn't deny the government has an agenda at all. I personally would definitely support more taxpayers money for schools and childcare.

It is entirely possible that the best thing for my family would be for taxpayers to give me money so I can stay at home with my kids. But the country can't afford to pay for thousands upon thousands of fit healthy people to stop work and constantly be available for their kids (assuming there are no health issues for those children).

RainbowsAndUnicorn · 23/02/2017 12:30

It will be good if more people work, we should never have got to the stage where we are paying people to not work. The longer out of the workplace the longer they are a cost to others and contributing nothing back.

It also has the added benefit of children seeing both sexes can work, rather than girls believing that all life consists of is children and housework. Teachers can do their best to instil career aspirations in children but the majority follow what their parents did.

Nobody is dictating how many children a person can have, just that they need to finance those choices. If they won't, then they shouldn't be having another child and putting them in that position. Pregnancy can be stopped by numerous methods, most "accidents"' are through mis use or not using reliable methods.

EnormousTiger · 23/02/2017 12:33

Yes, good role models for girls ifm other work.

However plenty of those even in full time work claim housing benefits and tax credits so it is not just an issue about those who work and don't.

We need more stick as well as carrot to encourage people to take fewer benefits.

Sixisthemagicnumber · 23/02/2017 12:34

But what you are missing whenshewas is the point that the govt can afford to support some families financially to have a sahp - because it is costing Them more in childcare support than it would be if one of the parents didn't work.
For example: one parent earning £22k and one sahp with two children and no disabilities. That family will get minimal tax credits because of the workers income. Now, if the other parent for a job on minimum wage working 16 hours a week that family would get childcare tax credits and those tax credits would be more than what they previously received. The family won't be financially better off because they will have to pay 30% of the childcare costs as tax credits only cover up to 70%.
Where is the logic in that unless the family really want both parents working?

Somerville · 23/02/2017 12:34

No. If I could be accused of anything, let it be othering people who choose to have 3+ children. It's a high-risk path, and my view is further entrenched by my strong sense of impending doom re: climate change, overpopulation etc. If it makes my position any more palatable, I don't feel much differently about wealthy people having big families (I might even worry more about that).

The other two have said they were, but I clearly was inaccurate to lump you in with them. Apologies.

Othering people with 3+ children regardless of income is at least consistent. Grin

Sixisthemagicnumber · 23/02/2017 12:36

Just as well I don't have any girls then tiger seeing as my lowly status as an unemployed carer would be setting a bad example to them.

lottieandmia · 23/02/2017 12:41

Abortion itself increases breast cancer risk. And my friend had trouble conceiving after a botched D&C.

It's not always a simple procedure and does have health risks.

Bragadocia · 23/02/2017 12:44

I can't see any unbiased (i.e. not from a pro life organisation) indicating a link between breast cancer and abortion. All I see is studies disproving and debunking it.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid · 23/02/2017 12:44

Where is the logic in that unless the family really want both parents working

six

The logic is that, children benefit from seeing both parents working (other posters have pointed out this helps girls).
Also the high cost of child care drops a lot once the children are in full time education. It makes no sense at all to remove yourself from the workforce and deskill yourself.

Children aren't little forever, your working life could last 45 years. I'll still be working when my kids have left home will they ever leave home

So yes there may (possibly) be a short ish period of 5 years where it doesn't make financial sense to keep a parent working - but it works in the long term.

lottieandmia · 23/02/2017 12:45

FFS people are not being 'paid not to work'

If you earn £600 a month, how the fuck do you get that to cover costs of rent, food, energy, clothes etc?

This is why tax credits exist. Because employers don't pay people enough money. They take advantage. And then people say it's about vast numbers of unemployed when it's not.

MorrisZapp · 23/02/2017 12:45

But statistically it's vastly safer than childbirth.

MorrisZapp · 23/02/2017 12:47

Sorry, thread moving quickly. Abortion is statistically much safer than childbirth.

lottieandmia · 23/02/2017 12:48

Bragadocia - breast cancer is caused by hormone changes. Breastfeeding has a protective effect and abortion, because it brings a pregnancy to an unnatural end is a risk factor. Thats not a conspiracy theory.

Sixisthemagicnumber · 23/02/2017 12:50

Do children benefit from both parents working whenshewas? Are there any reliable studies which prove that theory? I've no doubt that some studies will attempt to prove that but there are probably as many studies which show that children do better when they have sahp. I don't think either of those theories are correct as every family is unique.

And whilst taking time out of the job market might hamper a well paid career it won't do much harm to somebody who has only ever earned minimum wage and isn't educated to a level where they can realistically expect to earn more (although many many minimum wage jobs are very important jobs).

lottieandmia · 23/02/2017 12:50

Well childbirth has its own risks. But I'm pointing out that abortion isn't without its own issues. Not to mention mental health difficulties that can arise in some people. I'm not anti abortion at all but I think this should be acknowledged.

Bragadocia · 23/02/2017 12:51

And yet no studies find a link.

FrenchLavender · 23/02/2017 12:52

I don't imagine the abortion rate will go up, but it won't bother me if it does.

I'd like to think it would make people a bit less casual and sloppy with their birth control though.

MorrisZapp · 23/02/2017 12:52

I'd be interested to know how many women are on medication for MH problems following termination, compared to how many are on medication for MH problems following becoming mothers. I never knew a moment of mental ill health until my son was born. I'm an anecdote of course, but I'd guess the statistics correlate.

BeIIatrixLeStrange · 23/02/2017 12:53

I am in agreement with the new rules. We shouldn't be forced into paying (through our taxes) for other peoples children

In my case, I would be paying tax for someone who doesn't work (or earns less), to have more children than me?! Yeah right, people need to get off their arses and fund their own kids

Floggingmolly · 23/02/2017 12:55

Because employers don't pay people enough money
I keep reading this, and I'm not quite getting it. Everybody doesn't earn the same, not everyone works for minimum wage.
That surely is a choice, too? At some stage or other, people make a choice to have kids knowing that their job doesn't pay enough for them to be self supporting.

lottieandmia · 23/02/2017 12:56

That's because it's a difficult thing to study

'Researchers have looked at the possible link between abortion and breast cancer for many years, but this has been a difficult area to study.' (American Cancer Association)

There is no disagreement that early motherhood has a protective effect and that even pregnancies after age 30 increase risk. So it's not exactly a leap of faith is it.

And it's not the only risk.

gluteustothemaximus · 23/02/2017 12:56

Some people will never be able to earn as much as others. Not all people are academic, or able to achieve the higher paid jobs. Does this mean they live a childless life? Children being a luxury item, that just isn't within their reach if on minimum wage?

And here we have it again. You do realise that having two children is not childlessness - right

I do indeed Grin

It's just given some of the comments on here, it seems that poor working classes should not be having any children.

splendide · 23/02/2017 12:58

Do children benefit from both parents working whenshewas? Are there any reliable studies which prove that theory? I've no doubt that some studies will attempt to prove that but there are probably as many studies which show that children do better when they have sahp. I don't think either of those theories are correct as every family is unique.

There are studies which show this but I wouldn't plan my own life around a study, we'll do what's best for us. I suspect there is a lot of correlation rather than causation in those studies. DH is a SAHP.

I suppose if you're making government policy then you do need to work on averages and so on. Like pupil premium - there are often threads on here where people are insulted that they are assumed to be educationally disadvantaging their children just because they're poor. Nobody is assuming that - it's just on average poor children do worse at school, that doesn't tell you anything about any one case.