Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 6 7 8 ··· 37 38

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

OP posts:

NeedsAsockamnesty · 21/02/2017 18:48

It only counts if the children are in your household

Dawndonnaagain · 21/02/2017 18:48

There are days when humanity disgusts me.

OatcakeCravings · 21/02/2017 18:49

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

This whole 'no money' thing trotted out by frothing uninformed Tory mouthpieces really needs to stop as well. We are the 6th largest economy in the world, why can't you grasp this simple fact? There is no money for the NHS, social care etc etc because our current government prioritises other things, things like tax cuts for the rich, inheritance tax cuts etc.

The economy in the UK and the rest of the world suffered because of the banking crisis, the banks caused it, not people on benefits and not the Labour Party. We bailed the banks out at a cost of trillions to ordinary tax payers. Christ they told you about it on the news...the Tories got in and used this to bring us austerity, they cut services, blaming the Labour Party for the world financial crisis. At the same time the Tory party borrowed more money than any other government since the war.... again this was widely reported on the news, but for some reason I cannot fathom you Tory supporting/UKIP fuckwits all blame the Labour Party.

MuseumOfCurry · 21/02/2017 18:49

Morals and ethical issues aside, how much is this going to actually save, and what other shite are they spending it on?

I don't look at it this way. I look at the current arrangement of rewarding people financially for having a lot of children as a trap that locks them into a life of zero aspiration. We have no idea what this actually costs in terms of human productivity.

Gertrudeisgerman · 21/02/2017 18:50

I didn't get any 'extra' financial help as a survivor of domestic abuse. What I did get was shitty judgement and lots of forms to fill out for housing benefit because even though I had equity in a house, it has taken from Sept 2014 to last week to get that money, court ordered from ExH. And I was homeless, which is a problem hen applying for any benefits. The HB woman actually sneered 'How has a graduate like you got yourself in this position?' Fucking bitch.

I got made redundant a month after I was put in hospital.

I then applied to uni and got 2 under min wage jobs (didn't come in until last year, min wage). I then worked FT as soon as my lectures stopped.

I got sterilised after my 3rd child as I knew that another child was not financially viable and DC3 was actually a twin but twin 2 didn't make it due to DV. So I was responsible.

So my circumstances meant the state had to support me at that difficult time. Lots of people have shit that goes on in their life and need that extra support. Having a one size fits all approach is wrong.

OneWithTheForce · 21/02/2017 18:50

Thanks needs

SemiNormal · 21/02/2017 18:50

Some of you seem woefully unaware that contraception can (and does, hello ds3) fail - Some people seem woefully unaware that multiple methods of contraception exist, most of which are free and more than one method can be used at the same time. What's more is that should contraception fail and you are aware of it you can take the MAP, failing that there is always abortion.

OneWithTheForce · 21/02/2017 18:51

Perhaps they need to also look at securing/fixing child maintenance payments for existing children then.

RainbowsAndUnicorn · 21/02/2017 18:52

The idea that people genuinely want to live on benefits is insane.

Insane, really? Plenty of example on here of people planning children based on benefits, having another child to get a house move, working out the min hours needed to get round the benefits cap, planning to be a SAHP as tax credits will pay for it etc.

You would have to be incredibly nieve to believe everybody who claims a benefit from the state does so because they have no choice. The vast majority do but prefer to take the easy option.

BonnyScotland · 21/02/2017 18:54

your friend terminated her pregnancy because they will not get additional benefits to raise the child...

I'm actually speechless ...

Lilmisskittykat · 21/02/2017 18:55

I agree with the limits on child tax credits.. it shouldn't be a limitless pot to pay for children. It was brought in pre war to help increase the birth rate we don't have that issue now so there's no need for it.

As for abortion figures increase in not concerned as long as who don't want children for whatever reason have access and the ability to make a choice.

Although really in this day and age of easy access and free contraception this shouldn't be an issue. I'm not concerned

space83 · 21/02/2017 18:55

SemiNormal You know this for concrete certainty in terms of 'I know people who know the system like the back of my hand'. So, you've sat down and discussed with them their hopes and aspirations, you've spoken at length about the dreams they had when younger, you've listened to them shrug and go 'that's life' and give up? So you think that that is a fine situation to encourage? To say that people aspire to live on benefits is insane. And I stand by it because people need purpose. People want purpose. People need to feel worth. Tax credits were meant to encourage this. A £74k MP who is supported by the state - well, where else do they get it from? - is in actuality more of a problem to society than an estate full of brickies, mechanics, plumbers, dreamers, secret innovators and stay at home mothers.

mothertruck3r · 21/02/2017 18:56

The government have said that there will be provision for those women who have a third whilst in an abusive relationship will be allowed to claim on the proviso that they leave the abusive relationship.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561641/exceptions-to-the-limiting-of-the-individual-child-element-of-child-tax-credit-and-the-child-element-of-universal-credit-to-a-maximum-of-2-children.pdf

"Requirement to not be living with the alleged perpetrator 36)We recognise the difficulty some women have in leaving an abusive relationship, where they have been subject to sexual abuse. However existing legislation such as work related requirements easements for victims of domestic abuse in benefits legislation and Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme requires that the victim leaves the relationship prior to being able to make use of such provisions. It is in the best interests and safety of the claimant and her children to no longer be living with the alleged perpetrator of the rape. Furthermore we want to ensure that the alleged perpetrator does not stand to benefit from the exception and we want to reduce any risk of collusion or exploitation. Thus we propose making it a requirement for eligibility for the exception that the claimant confirms that she is not living with the alleged perpetrator. Beyond the need to confirm this, there will be no requirement to identify the alleged perpetrator."

Floggingmolly · 21/02/2017 18:57

Your friends could have "squeezed in" another child if someone else was footing the bill?? Couldn't we all, dear, couldn't we all...

TheFirstMrsDV · 21/02/2017 18:58

Long, long before this benefit system existed women were being accused of having babies for profit.
There were no tax credits when my oldest two were born. You got very little for having additional children but I would be amazed if the abortion rate was higher or poor people had less kids.

People will keep having kids but they be poorer than they are now.

The tories don't care.

and Bonny that is a ridiculous interpretation of what the OP has written.

TeaCake5 · 21/02/2017 19:00

Simple don't have kids you can't afford.

BonnyScotland · 21/02/2017 19:02

no it's not.. that is exactly what she has expressed....

RainbowsAndUnicorn · 21/02/2017 19:03

Bonny is right though.

They could have gained more hours, taken on a second job etc rather than believe somebody else should pay. We could all have lots of extra things in life if somebody else picks up the costs.

SemiNormal · 21/02/2017 19:03

You know this for concrete certainty in terms of 'I know people who know the system like the back of my hand'. So, you've sat down and discussed with them their hopes and aspirations, you've spoken at length about the dreams they had when younger, you've listened to them shrug and go 'that's life' and give up? So you think that that is a fine situation to encourage? - Yes I do know this and have sat down and spoken with such people. They don't care, they are happy enough sat at home playing on their Xbox all day claiming benefits. I'm in university and have encouraged them to do something productive but they're not interested at all because their attitude is why bother working hard for anything when they get given it for doing fuck all. I don't think it should be encouraged at all, which is why I think removing certain benefits, or at least cutting them, is a good thing - because it may make certain people who feel life on benefits is a free ride wake up and want to change their situation. Handing them everything on a plate certainly hasn't encouraged them to aspire to do something with their lives.

To say that people aspire to live on benefits is insane. And I stand by it because people need purpose. People want purpose. People need to feel worth. - And some people are happy enough playing Xbox all day in their PJs. Some peoples purpose in life is to be the best ever on COD sadly.

space83 · 21/02/2017 19:04

RainbowsAndUnicorns I'll stand by it. Planning children around benefits? Are you sure that's what they do? And by 'they' you're 'Othering' people so you don't have to be included in any of the community discussed.

Let's say Rainbow that you lost your job. Outgoings suddenly shot up. Unexpected bills came in. Any savings dwindled. You have minimal family to call on because we're two generations into the new idea of a two child state. Your relationship for whatever reason ended and you were left in a situation where you suddenly fall pregnant through contraception failure. You're a devout Catholic. Or you live in Ireland where abortion is limited. Or maybe you suddenly find yourself with a life limiting disability. Or some other problem which impacts on your capacity to work.

You have years of working experience behind. Years. Benefits claims are now non-existent - you're entitlement on any government calculator is 0. The welfare system does not exist any longer. You can't afford health insurance, so you can't even pay for a termination. You're a month from losing your house.

In the game of life, in the new society, one of limited social conscience - you are dead. Simple. We're talking Dickensian Scrooge, we're talking Inspector Calls, we're talking North & South. 19th Century charity hospitals and debtors prisons. 1980's 'gissa job'. This is the reality that we are heading towards - a neo conservatism that is truly scary to consider in any society. And it really doesn't have to be like that.

Lilmisskittykat · 21/02/2017 19:04

I think you are naive if you don't believe benefits is a lifestyle choice. I can only assume this perception is linked to the area you live in.

I live in a run down industrial town with little by way of aspiration or prospects and believe me here playing the system is a choice many make (and do better then those of us who work out of)

StumblyMonkey · 21/02/2017 19:05

Of course, if people can't afford more than two children they can always use protection.

I'm a high earner but can't afford to take mat leave right now even though I very much want a baby. So guess what, I use protection.

AndNowItsSeven · 21/02/2017 19:09

Superhero if you read my post you will see I do not agree with only the disability element being available. I was simply letting you know what the answers to your scenario were.

helpmebuystuff · 21/02/2017 19:10

I live in a run down industrial town with little by way of aspiration or prospects and believe me here playing the system is a choice many make (and do better then those of us who work out of)

I believe you but the problem we ought to be solving is why aspirations are so low in such places.

F1GI · 21/02/2017 19:11

The government is desperately desperately short of money for anything. Everything conceivable is being cut to the bone and even beyond. It isn't that they want to cap this, they have to for two reasons[

1# no money
2# to win votes from people who don't think its fair that you can have a large family and get money for however many kids, particularly when most poeple who stopped at 1 or 2 (or even 0) did so for financial reasons

ideally this wouldn't happen but we are broke!

Flip

1 2 ··· 6 7 8 ··· 37 38

Swipe left for the next trending thread