‘Two-child limit taking toll on family life’

[SweetMelodies]

www.itv.com/news/2019-06-25/two-child-limit-taking-toll-on-family-life-study-suggests/

So the first detailed research into families effected by the 2-child policy, where tax credits are only paid for the first two children unlike in the past when it was every child, has taken place and has found that families are suffering as a direct result of this.

A lot of comments on SM seem to forget that many many working families are effected as well. Even some families with ‘above-average’ incomes used to be entitled to tax credits for a third or subsequent child.

Any thoughts on this? I have mixed feelings as to whether it will work on in the long-run or not. Of course we all know families who have carried on having babies with no thought because each child has meant another monthly tax credits sum... but then there are also the families who are going to face one unplanned pregnancy that could push them into poverty and make their other children suffer.

No because they don't need more money and poor families do. Also not all poor families neglect their kids so you arnt 'giving them money to neglect their kids' since its a minority that do that. Just shown yourself as the judgemental person you are though... This comment shows you actually think all poor families neglect their kids. Maybe not having a Mc lifestyle is neglect to you, who knows.

@swingofthings I think that's a bit insulting to the animals.

The ones I didn't know about involve an object being put inside which I can't deal with, also no need to be so patronising as that's how your post is coming across

Can’t you use condoms? They are free. Or the contraceptive cap?

I am also nowhere near the Level of low iq and lack of education as many others out there

Coming from someone who can barely format sentences and hasn’t learnt how to use commas and full stops.

If the children have been removed by the LA it's because the parents have failed. They have neglected their children to the point that the LA had to step in. That's their fault. Not the children's and it's unfair. But it's time the parkway stopped blaming every Tom, dick and Harry and sorted themselves out.

Children's services is not what is pushing local authorities to breaking point, children's services is a fragment of the total LA spend. Last year, the local government spent £154 million in children services, that's compared to 2.8 billion in adult social care.

Ahh come on plenty of women have regretted waiting too long to have. kids, and she said she always wanted them so yes, not that different from animals. I suppose having children when nature intended in your 20s makes you an animal now. Ffs lol!

2 is authoritarian and discriminatory to certain cultures and ways of life

Nobody is saying you can't have more than two children, what they are saying that the state will neither encourage nor pay for it. If your "culture" requires you to have 10 children, fine (not that I have heard of one that does). But make sure you can support them before you have them.

You must know better than my head of children services then? About the effect austerity has had on vulnerable kids and families. Hmmm, OK then.

And plenty of people have regretted having children.

And many people should never have been parents.

Someone unable to have children in their mid/late thirties likely would have been infertile in their twenties.

So the blame lies with the parents. The Government gave plenty of notice. Again if parents have continued to bring children into poverty then that is their fault.

@2eternities, your last post shows you lack of personal responsibility. Having children no matter what should prevail over insuring you can offer your children the best life possible.

My friend has accepted that she'll never have children but she much rather accept this fate that having selfishly have children earlier, when she wasn't in a position to provide with a good role model of a father and financially give them what would help them flourish.

Any decision to have children no matter what is just selfish, which goes back to what some wrote at the start of this thread.

It's all good saying that to me since I only have two children. But others will have those children regardless (they already are!) and some, probably not all children will suffer for it despite their parents not being neglectful. That's unacceptable and puts strain on other services which people here keep repeatedly ignoring.

I wonder how these subsequent children will feel once grown, that their society didn't think they deserved to be born.

Hither I'm sorry that's just not true. Fertility issues can develop over time.

And that is the parents fault. If they'll neglect the third then the other two are neglected as well. It's not like the first two get the world and the third is the poor relation!!
Shit parents are shit parents.

Maybe they'll think their parents were selfish morons and strive to be better citizens than them.

It's all good saying that to me since I only have two children. But others will have those children regardless (they already are!) and some, probably not all children will suffer for it despite their parents not being neglectful

If they are the type of people to continually breed knowing that they have no way to support these extra children it’s unlikely they’d be good, responsible parents. They’d most likely be the cliche of parents who spend all their money on fags/booze and send their kids to school hungry.

Swing, sigh, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not a good idea deliberately leaving it very late, I accept some people just don't find the right person till late.

And far to many people settle for unsuitable partners and then it's the children who suffer.

Bet that's the Governments fault as well.

Wereeaglesdare and 2eternities

People here are not wanting an honest debate, they just want to repeat themselves and continue the path of logical fallacy (ad hominem, red herring, and strawmen galore) since they lack the critical thinking skills to do anything more than this. There's no point trying to discuss other angles to this topic because they will never do it. They ignore and attack because they don't have the ability to address everything this topic consists of. The more they attack, the more they prove us right because they have to rely on ad hominem since they have nothing of value to say. I think we should all just leave them to it. I'm over it.

Woah jumped on the lion thing as expected...infact I knew when I wrote that the response I would get. Obviously I mean that contraception FAILS and it is in our nature to reproduce. And yes it fucking is why the fuck do you think the world is overpopulated..
My point was you cannot disregard NATURE
Yes alot of us think about this first. But alot of us don't. Why don't we do a survey on how many children were planned?

Yes I think it's vile that some people have said that poor people need their children removing and the likes if they can't get help.

I see no one could answer the question I put in capitals right. This argument is just latching on to things instead of answering a question that has been asked in the beginning. Like I said God forbid you fall on hard times.

Done with this thread now it's nothing but the same shit repeated. I don't know where the fuck you people live but we're I live we look out for each other. Not some fucked up corrupt government.

Hither I'm sorry that's just not true. Fertility issues can develop over time

Aged 30 you are 86% likely to conceive after a year, aged 35 to 39 – 82% will conceive after 1 year and 90% after 2 years.

So it’s a 4% difference. The vast majority of women who can get pregnant at 25 will be able to get pregnant at 35. I know you want to blame women for their infertility but it’s bullshit. Some women are just infertile. It’s after 40 when there’s a very steady decline.

Hither none of the families I know smoke or drink so your wrong. Having an unplanned pregnancy or contraception failure doesn't mean you are irresponsible or smoke and drink. You are just being prejudiced. Turn channel 5 off

But others will have those children regardless (they already are!) and some, probably not all children will suffer for it despite their parents not being neglectful. That's unacceptable and puts strain on other services which people here keep repeatedly ignoring.
Yes, some sadly will think they are entitled to have as many children as they want, will continue to do so, and some of these children will dramatically require interventions from the local authority.

However, many more will thankfully stop at 2 children, meaning that these 2 children will likely have a better childhood than they would have with more siblings, and in total, there will be less children for the Local Authorities to look after.

The less children born to poor families, the less children requiring support from the LA.

Having an unplanned pregnancy or contraception failure doesn't mean you are irresponsible or smoke and drink.
Let's stop this nonsense about contraception failures. These are very very low when taken properly. I don't know anyone who didn't want a child in the first place who got pregnant whilst on the pill. Yet reading these boards, it seems to happen every week to women who are not in a good position to have children yet somehow know right away that they want to keep the baby.

Genuine failures do happen, but they are so rare, it would make no sense to base a policy that affects millions on the basis of this very rare event.