Impact of 2-child benefit cap on abortion decisions

[niceberg]

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/03/two-child-limit-on-benefits-a-key-factor-in-many-abortion-decisions-says-charity

This was inevitable and as such must have been seen as an acceptable outcome by the government when it was introduced.

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

Most importantly a comparison of the birth rate in countries with diametrically opposing child benefit policies shows that the UK policy IS punitive and does not work as a disincentive.

Child poverty and the birthrate are both significantly higher in the UK than Germany, even though Germany has universal child benefit for unlimited number of children, and the benefit is significantly more generous than in the UK.

All the UK caps do is put children into poverty. They don't stop people having babies.

Exactly this!

^the mum

Mums have children they can't support.

Immaculate conception, innit.^

@PearPickingPorky most of this thread has focused on the impact of the benefits cap on single mothers and abortions. Particularly the impact on housing benefit and single mothers.

In many of these scenarios it is the mum making the choices, they might be making them in the context of an unfair system but ultimately the decision to have an abortion comes down to the mums choice.

Though it shouldn’t be this way, women also currently carry much more responsibility for finding and using reliable contraception. Probably even more so in a context where they aren’t supported by a loving, caring partner.

So yes it is the mum who has the child they can’t support and the mum who cares for them. This isn’t fair and it shouldn’t be that way but that is the context of this discussion.

Yes there will be people in abusive relationships who have absolutely no choice about any of this and benefit caps must hit those mums and their children the hardest. I use mums again here because we could include their abusers but I don’t think they’re the ones getting the raw end of the deal.

@PodgeBod

As I said before, it seems common now to have 3 children at least where 2 used to be the norm. Why?

Its not the fertility rate in the UK is 1.79. 3 kids or more is not the norm.

In my village almost all the families with children have 3 or more. Where I used to live 3 or more was the norm.

Look at how many famous people have 3 or more.

199 (15) Puerto Rico (US) 1.0
200 South Korea 1.0
197 Singapore 1.1
198 (14) Hong Kong (China) 1.1
195 Malta 1.2
196 (13) Macau (China) 1.2

If you look at the countries with the lowest birth rates, they do not have disincentives for people to have fewer children. In fact, its often the opposite!

There are 4 East Asian countries on the list. In these countries, poorer people do not tend to have more than 2 children.

The reason for the low birth rate In Korea/HK/Singapore is:

1. High cost of living/property
2. Female emancipation in the workplace + Extremely conservative social views on the role of women- this means that many women do not wish to marry when they have fulfilling careers and can support themselves as marriage inevitably means becoming the subservient dogsbody of your husband's family
3. When women do marry, they want to marry a guy with an established career/house/car and who earns more.
4. Very long working hours which discourage people having more children.

None of these countries had an enforced 1 child policy. It is lifestyle/cultural factors that determine the number of children, not financial incentives/disincentives, unless we are talking about authoritarian governments.

And I am from one of the countries on the list, which is probably one of the reasons why I want an only child as i grew up in a country with small families.

Two thirds of the u.k. population are obese, including children, so it bemuses me to hear the claim that everyone is starving. It may be, in some cases, that people are chaotic in managing finance, but giving them shovel-fulls of cash, extra cash, round -the-year free school meals and free food may or may not be the best use of time, effort, attention, or solving the true problems.

More probably, the greater majority of the people choosing between Heat or Eat will be old people, hidden behind doors, managing meagre finance as best as humanly possible, not gambling, drinking or taking drugs, nor squandering in any way.

@20mum

Two thirds of the u.k. population are obese, including children, so it bemuses me to hear the claim that everyone is starving. It may be, in some cases, that people are chaotic in managing finance, but giving them shovel-fulls of cash, extra cash, round -the-year free school meals and free food may or may not be the best use of time, effort, attention, or solving the true problems.

More probably, the greater majority of the people choosing between Heat or Eat will be old people, hidden behind doors, managing meagre finance as best as humanly possible, not gambling, drinking or taking drugs, nor squandering in any way.

Tend to agree with this.

PinkPlantCase yes, you keep saying "it shouldn't be this way". It won't change if we keep perpetuating this notion that women get themselves pregnant, and decide to have lots of children, by themselves, that they cannot support by themselves, and so the only way to fix this is to punish the women and children by making them live in poverty.

@PinkPlantCase

^the mum

Mums have children they can't support.

Immaculate conception, innit.^

@PearPickingPorky most of this thread has focused on the impact of the benefits cap on single mothers and abortions. Particularly the impact on housing benefit and single mothers.

In many of these scenarios it is the mum making the choices, they might be making them in the context of an unfair system but ultimately the decision to have an abortion comes down to the mums choice.

Though it shouldn’t be this way, women also currently carry much more responsibility for finding and using reliable contraception. Probably even more so in a context where they aren’t supported by a loving, caring partner.

So yes it is the mum who has the child they can’t support and the mum who cares for them. This isn’t fair and it shouldn’t be that way but that is the context of this discussion.

Yes there will be people in abusive relationships who have absolutely no choice about any of this and benefit caps must hit those mums and their children the hardest. I use mums again here because we could include their abusers but I don’t think they’re the ones getting the raw end of the deal.

I agree. As a woman the choice has always been up to me. 100 percent.

What's the alternative? "Oh dear, you don't have a condom? I guess I'll just risk having an unplanned offspring then; let's go to it." Really???

In my village almost all the families with children have 3 or more. Where I used to live 3 or more was the norm.

Look at how many famous people have 3 or more.

I strongly doubt this is a representative sample. Many of my colleagues only have one child. Although, those with adult children tend to have two.

@PearPickingPorky

PinkPlantCase yes, you keep saying "it shouldn't be this way". It won't change if we keep perpetuating this notion that women get themselves pregnant, and decide to have lots of children, by themselves, that they cannot support by themselves, and so the only way to fix this is to punish the women and children by making them live in poverty.

But women do ultimately have total control over whose sperm enters them, whether contraception is used and whether pregnancy is aborted.

If 57, sexually active since 17, and no man has ever told me what to do in regards to any of the above. My body, my choices, MY responsibility.

Regarding obesity, it’s quite possible for a person to be both obese and malnourished.

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

There are a lot of deliberately obtuse posts on this thread.

Do posters seriously believe that the entire population has the capacity to risk assess for the next 18 years before making a decision? Are people posting so lacking in emotional intelligence and so willfully ignorant and blinkered that they choose to believe that everyone is intellectually and psychologically identical and capable of the same fairly complex in depth thought processes? That women who have grown up in chotic homes with parents living from week to werk, paycheck to pay check, are universally capable of planning for theoretical financial or health disasters which might happen in ten year's time?

Many posters on this thread are deliberately pretending to believe that everyone is of above average intelligence, whilse themselves displaying a massive disconnect which looks a lot like willful ignorance.

Then we need to put resources into educating and training these people regarding their life choices, with the aim of preventing imprudent and ill-advised reproduction.

Not supporting it after the fact.

I agree. As a woman the choice has always been up to me. 100 percent.

What's the alternative? "Oh dear, you don't have a condom? I guess I'll just risk having an unplanned offspring then; let's go to it." Really???

Approximately 50% of pregnancies are unplanned.

Awful lot of feckless women we have who need to punished by making sure they and their children are living in poverty.

But women do ultimately have total control over whose sperm enters them, whether contraception is used and whether pregnancy is aborted.

The ignorance of this to the reality of so many women's lives. And the total abnegation of the responsibility of the men who actually do the ejaculating into a woman which causes the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

@Cattenberg

Regarding obesity, it’s quite possible for a person to be both obese and malnourished.

But it's not really possible for a person to be obese and starving. Malnutrition means they're not meating their nutritional needs, which really comes down to choice or social factors, not finances in the vast majority of cases in the UK. Food deserts are comparitively rare in the UK (only affecting a million odd people) and there is a variety of cheap and nutritional food.

Then we need to put resources into educating and training these people regarding their life choices, with the aim of preventing imprudent and ill-advised reproduction.

Not supporting it after the fact.

By punishing the children after they are born by making them live in poverty?

'But women do ultimately have total control over whose sperm enters them, whether contraception is used and whether pregnancy is aborted.'

They can ditch the rape exemption clause then and save even more money. Yay!

Also the state coercing women into abortions they don't want yay!

I love this thread.

I'm particularly confused about all these tots who are squandering money on drink or drugs but hey what do I know.

Oh you meant the reckless women. In a way it would be better to either take the children away or put the women and children into some kind of controlled environment to raise them. Because if they are choosing not to feed their children then that's very serious neglect.

There could be big house type things for the children who have been removed to live together under the care of the state, and other big house things for the mothers and children to be put in.

Soup and bread are very nutritious, consideration should be given to a diet along those lines.

50% of pregnancies are unplanned, but there is no reason in U.K. for a woman to decline to get the morning after pill, decline to get any other form of interception with any potential pregnancy, such as having a coil fitted, and decline to have more than one form of contraception from there onwards.

The imagined picture appears to be one where absolutely accidentally, a woman in the middle of pregnancy suddenly notices she is pregnant with an unwanted, unsupportable child, and is 'forced to choose' to have her DC ripped from her body. Very dramatic but not a true picture. Only a handful of women don't know they are pregnant till a late stage.

I do, though, wish that people would take instant action where there has been any risk of pregnancy, not leave it till there is certainty, as if they wilfully prefer to give themselves any potential emotional cost by allowing their brains to kick in with the animal protective instinct. In that respect, it was far better before pregnancy tests were not only readily available, but also were able to detect pregnancy almost as soon as the man leaves the bedroom!

If it's unplanned, stop it fast and stop any chance of it happening again. Not only does the planet not need extra population, humans do need those, rare, children who do arrive to be longed for, deliberate, carefully planned, prepared for, provided for, cherished by their immediate circle and their wider community. There shouldn't be a need for the central or local government to lift a finger for these exceptional, beloved stars. 'A village will raise a child'' A child who is any less precious has less than the life deserved.

@20mum Uk birth rate is at the lowest it has been in 80 years. Even mums of non uk origin, who were responsible for a disproportionate number of births (and for many of them, its a cultural thing so having CB or not isn't a factor), have seen a declining birth rate.

People on Mumsnet are always saying XX has these children she can't afford and so many of them. But I don't see it, if anything, people are having far fewer children. Yes a lot of people can't even afford 1 child. And many of them would never be able to afford more than 1 child without state support even if they waited until they were 40.
But this thread title is saying that poor people can have children, just not more than 2.

'I do, though, wish that people would take instant action where there has been any risk of pregnancy'

People? What action should men take?

'There shouldn't be a need for the central or local government to lift a finger for these exceptional, beloved stars. 'A village will raise a child'' A child who is any less precious has less than the life deserved.'

Christ.

So all the children of people who have lost their jobs due to Corona etc have children who no longer, what. Have any chance of a good life?.
Well I suppose that's possibly true if their mothers are vilified and no one will help them in any way. Which seems to be the point of that village comment.

50% of pregnancies are unplanned, but there is no reason in U.K. for a woman to decline to get the morning after pill, decline to get any other form of interception with any potential pregnancy, such as having a coil fitted, and decline to have more than one form of contraception from there onwards.

No reason other than contraception being mostly hormonal, which many women can't tolerate, or has quite significant side effects. And it being difficult to use as it needs to be taken at the same time every day, which is not always possible for some women. Or alternatively, the coil being a horribly invasive and painful insertion, which can cause very heavy bleeding every month.

If only here was a contraceptive option for men which didn't involve any pain or negative side effects to their health, then men wouldn't keep unintentionally causing pregnancies.

The morning-after pill is not bloody magic.

It's not as simple as "just take the morning-after pill" after unprotected sex!

I still want to know what action the man should take to prevent pregnancy on realising he has had unprotected sex.

There must be some way he can act to put an end to any possible pregnancy.

The PP did say it was down to people, after all, to act to prevent pregnancy after the event.

The only thing I can think of that's in his hands is giving her a really solid beating tbh. Would be need to wait until any pregnancy was further along though?

I can't think of another way.

@NiceGerbil

So many people red hot keen. What has changed? In just a few years.

A few years of people enthusiastically posting links to the Daily Mail, Spectator, Spiked and the Murdoch press with heaps of gushing praise perhaps? They really 'get it,' isn't that the consensus? Brendan O Neill, James Kirkup and Douglas Murray are the new heroes of women's rights. Why are you surprised when people listen to what else they say.

I bet if the editors of those papers read this thread they'd pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Worth every penny of Julie Bindel's salary for her Spectator column. This is what feminism is now.