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.

@Prestel

Many families not on benefits go to work and pay taxes to pay for the benefits

Families on modest incomes with school age children do get benefits, though - they get child tax credits or the child element of universal credit - the very benefits affected by recent cuts and the two child limit. So those families still have to pay just as much tax, but are getting less back.

The majority of child tax credits are claimed by working families.

The campaigning needs to be for a proper living wage and rent/ house prices. Then working people wouldn't need benefits and wouldn't be affected by caps. Though many families would still limit the number of children they have, as you do have more outgoings the more children you have!

As said before I don't think there should ever be a cap on existing children with a new claim for working tax credits/ universal credits etc. However, I honestly see nothing wrong in saying to people already on working tax credits and benefits, if you have more children, you will have to spread your cloth thinner and your money won't increase. They are then free to decide whether to keep the baby or not and the reality of that for either decision.

But the campaigning is for a proper living wage, lower housing costs and affordable childcare. That way the overall cost of adequate benefits to prevent child poverty goes down - while living standards improve for all. Win-win.

Instead living standards for working households have fallen in the last 10 years and benefits are no longer protecting the poorest. Lose-lose.

On the other hand Spain has always had much better nursery and childcare provision which is half the price of anything here. It was very easy for women to work in Spain in the so called Catholic country. Nurseries open from 7 a.m. in the morning until 7 p.m at night or even later and very affordable too. Many state schools are nurseries from age 3 with after school provision in place.

That is what is needed here, rather than propping people up on welfare tax credits and allowances

The Spanish plan everything very carefully. They don't leave home until 30 or more. They save every euro to buy a flat and they don't have children until they are settled in a flat with a permanent contract. They will have one child at the most unless very rich.

And actually abortion has been legal in "Catholic Spain" for a long time and women make full use of it. I don't think low birth rates is bad by any means in our over populated planet. You cannot really be Green and advocate continuing high birth rates.

Everyone is up in arms about children living in poverty with not enough food to eat in the holidays. But when it comes to down to how we solve that, ie give poor families more money, there’s so much wailing about how unfair and wrong it all is.

I agree with this. Unplanned pregnancies happen. I personally don't equate my decision to stick to two kids with a woman living in poverty feeling forced to abort a wanted accidental pregnancy.

The UK isn't going to be like Spain, as someone else said, they are completely different and it would take a major cultural shift for so many people to be living with their parents until 30+ in the UK, for example.

Women in Spain go back to work earlier in Spain because they have to as well, maternity leave is 16 weeks, I wonder how Mumsnet users would feel about that being standard here.

I wonder why Toynbee whose column was linked to is now an anti-abortionist? If you can't afford a kid and many many people couldn't in the past you couldn't have an abortion. Now you can free on the state. If you can't afford a child, have an abortion. What's wrong with that?

Looking forward to anti abortion arguments on a feminists site.

There must be some kind of misunderstanding. Pro-lifers aren't banned from mumsnet, although if it's an argument you want to have, you'd be better off posting in AIBU or chat. Lots of web traffic, quite a few pro-lifers around there.

There is a lot of difference between saying that women should have access to legal and safe termination of pregnancy if they choose and saying that women should be financially pressured to have terminations they don't want to have. I'm certain you can appreciate the difference.

"The right to choice means women should have the number of children they want: no more, no fewer"

Is what Polly says, if you actually read it.

The alternative to women not being financially pressured to have terminations they don’t want is to introduce financial incentives for having children.

In an overpopulated world, that is unwise in the extreme.

And polly is wrong.

We don’t always get what we want.

"The right to choice means women should have the number of children they want: no fewer."
That's nice. First World Problems. Unfortunately, most women in the rest of the world are breeding instruments. We even have the same problem here with disadvantaged women and certain ethnic groups. Why are you not in favour of birth control and control of birth rates?

Just to set the record straight: I am pro abortion. Very much so.

If you can't afford a child or don't want it, free abortion is your friend. How lucky we are! Not available for our sisters in more oppressive countries 😢

"The right to choice means women should have the number of children they want, no fewer."
Actually, nothing wrong with this, providing you are not expecting the State to finance your breeding habits.

'Just to set the record straight: I am pro abortion. Very much so.'

Yes we're getting that, loud and clear.

@Prestel

Nope, the 80s and 90s.

Oh, so when contraceptives were the same as now and the birth rate was the same as now but, unlike now, families could claim support for all their children?

Women take as much responsibility today as they did in the 80s and 90s, the only difference is we used to care about children and provided for them irrespective of why they came into the world, using education to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies rather than using deprivation to reduce otherwise wanted pregnancies as we are doing now, despite the fact that our birth rate is already well below two and if it drops further our economic model will become totally unsustainable.

Bullshit.

There is no shortage of human beings.

We are killing this planet and sending worthy species to extinction each and every day due to human overbreeding.

Stop insinuating that women can't control their own reproduction because we know that is simply false. Contraception and abortion work.

There is absolutely no way we cared for children in the 80s and 90s.

Corporal punishment was legal in schools and encouraged in parents in the 80s and wasn’t outlawed in private schools until what, 1999 or something? Children who were victims of sexual abuse were not listened to, ignored, told to stop telling lies. Children were bundled into the backs of cars without a thought for their safety and smoked all over.

Yes, lone parents didn’t have to work until their youngest was 12, and they were given benefits for their children. But do you really think it was some sort of golden age for single mums and their kids?

Why are you not in favour of birth control and control of birth rates?

I am, but I am also pragmatic. Birth control doesn't mean wanted and unwanted accidental pregnancies won't happen. Abortion services are needed just as children living in poverty need help. These aren't mutually exclusive opinions.

Also you missed out a bit of the quote above, she actually said "no more, no fewer'. This implies she supports choice either way (as do I).

I don't think it's feasible that an increase in benefits is given every time people have another child. Folk don't get a wage increase if they have another child. They just have to manage on what they earn.

Folk don't get a wage increase if they have another child.

No, but they do get an increase in the child tax credits they receive - or they did until the two child limit was introduced.

"Folks who work" and "folks who receive benefits" are the same people in many cases. Cuts to child benefits have negatively affected large numbers of working families.

"Stop insinuating that women can't control their own reproduction."
Unfortunately they can't in the Middle East and Africa where they face extreme male violence and no rights. Something which some ethnic minorities would like to import into this country. Who is having numerous children on welfare apart from poor white people?