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.

@jj1968 ok so what do other european countries pay out ?
I thought many of them were based on what you paid in
Can you give me an example as my friend from a european country said they get a lot less in benefits and was suprised what people could claim here

This isn’t just a financial decision, it’s a social one too.

The government have always offered incentives and disincentives as a way to try to influence what people do.

It is not good at all for numerous children to be born into financial and emotional instability (coercive control.) Not good for the women and not good for the children.

No one is saying ‘working class women cannot have children.’

I have mixed feelings about this. It's uncomfortable to think women are put in this position as a result of policy but it is something that often happens for women not in receipt of benefits.

I know a young couple that made this choice (about a first accidental pregnancy) due to financial insecurity at the time. Had they been in a better position they absolutely would have wanted to continue the pregnancy.

I also can't help but think having more than two children is a detriment to women that are already disadvantaged. With every child you have life gets exponentially harder. I am a bit biased here because I had 4 children at a fairly young age and whilst I love them dearly (and there are upsides to bigger families) I wish I had understood fully the limitations that come with it. An older, wiser me might have stopped at 2, which is difficult to write because I can't really imagine not having the youngest 2.

Having said that nobody wants, I would hope, a situation whereby women are effectively sanctioned for not wanting an abortion in the case of accidental pregnancy. In many ways I can imagine the decision being more difficult when you already have children because you know what it is deliver a wanted child.

This is all without even touching on the climate/over population arguments. Although I will say it sits a bit uncomfortably that if as part of climate change measures it's poorer women who will be disproportionately expected to cease or limit their reproduction.

I'd much rather we limited the number of children people had at the "front end" rather than punishing the women and children once the children are here.

We need to make men pay for their careless seed-spreading. No more dodging child maintenance, or letting them pay less than the actual financial burden of raising the child. It's not fair that women have to shoulder this.

Maybe a carrot approach could be that childcare is fully funded for the first two children, instead of any benefits being paid.

The 2 child limit is an abomination and its atrocious that people are defending it on a feminist forum.

However the rape clause gives us an astonishing insight into how prevalent rape is. A minimum of 1 in 1000 (0.1%) of third or subsequent children are the result of rape.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/17/data-shows-900-women-in-uk-affected-by-tax-credit-clause?fbclid=IwAR3xJqChtWyI-KmEtp0kF4Ktq7R5xpEKHf_5DRAK-6qgn0yoljiiNQQKbj8

[quote timeforanewstart]@jj1968 we have free education upto 18 and you can get on college courses for free if you only have education up to a certain level[/quote]
You can get on some part time college courses, but very rarely ones which will leave you with any kind of vocational qualification/. More importantly the Jobcenre is likely to insist you leave because you're supposed to be spending every second of your day on jobseeking activity. Plenty of women have had to leave college courses on the verge of qualifying because the Jobcentre bullied them into it under the threat of sanctions.

This is all without even touching on the climate/over population arguments. Although I will say it sits a bit uncomfortably that if as part of climate change measures it's poorer women who will be disproportionately expected to cease or limit their reproduction.

It's also a very poor measure to cut emissions. If we really want to be serious about climate change we should be preventing the wealthy from having kids, because its them destroying the planet not single mums living on a pittance. There is a horrifying record of overpopulation measures being used to attack women, up to and including coerced and unsafe sterilisation.

Really revealing how many on here are the biggest supporters of women in prisons or refuges and homeless hostels when it suits them, but quite happy to let their children go hungry as a form of punishment if they offend them by having too many. At least the toilets in the foodbank might be single sex I guess.

Yes I dont understand maybe it would make feckless men have less children but it still is a policy that void make some children go without and even 1 child going hungry or going without is 1 too many. It’s not the place to make a point to punish adults for their decisions

Void-would

@jj1968

This is all without even touching on the climate/over population arguments. Although I will say it sits a bit uncomfortably that if as part of climate change measures it's poorer women who will be disproportionately expected to cease or limit their reproduction.

It's also a very poor measure to cut emissions. If we really want to be serious about climate change we should be preventing the wealthy from having kids, because its them destroying the planet not single mums living on a pittance. There is a horrifying record of overpopulation measures being used to attack women, up to and including coerced and unsafe sterilisation.

coerced and unsafe sterilisation

Yes. This is happening in the U.K. as well. SO many women pushed into sterilisation by partners and sadly very often doctors

@jj1968

Really revealing how many on here are the biggest supporters of women in prisons or refuges and homeless hostels when it suits them, but quite happy to let their children go hungry as a form of punishment if they offend them by having too many. At least the toilets in the foodbank might be single sex I guess.

I hardly recognise any of these usernames as FWR regulars. I'm sure most have hopped on the thread from Active Convos.

Are you sure you're not just on this thread to try and draw yet another parallel between feminists and the right wing? You've made some good posts and I'd hate to think the reasons behind them were disingenuous.

Paraphrasing here, but I agree with a PP that said that it is society that will suffer in the end. In the next few years these children are going to start coming of age who have (in increasing numbers) been raised in poverty, in overcrowded housing, in violent households that their parents couldn't afford to leave. That's without the cuts to mental health services. I feel really worried about the future.

@jj1968

Really revealing how many on here are the biggest supporters of women in prisons or refuges and homeless hostels when it suits them, but quite happy to let their children go hungry as a form of punishment if they offend them by having too many. At least the toilets in the foodbank might be single sex I guess.

jj this thread is not solely FWR posters. I don't recognise most of the names.

All mumsnet users are allowed to post on the threads on this board, they don't have to be bona fide radical feminist women. You're here, after all. Also, the thread title will attract many more people than the usual thread titles would, hence the wider range of commentators.

Are you sure you're not just on this thread to try and draw yet another parallel between feminists and the right wing? You've made some good posts and I'd hate to think the reasons behind them were disingenuous.

No I've spent the last two decades involved in fighting against cuts to social housing and lone parent's benefits.

@jj1968

Are you sure you're not just on this thread to try and draw yet another parallel between feminists and the right wing? You've made some good posts and I'd hate to think the reasons behind them were disingenuous.

No I've spent the last two decades involved in fighting against cuts to social housing and lone parent's benefits.

Well maybe don't spoil it then to take digs at women who are mostly not even on this thread.

We need to make men pay for their careless seed-spreading. No more dodging child maintenance, or letting them pay less than the actual financial burden of raising the child. It's not fair that women have to shoulder this.

This is an important point. It happens far too frequently whilst the mothers of those children are criticised no matter how they try to make ends meet.

I'm horrified by this. It was absolutely always going to happen though. I completely support abortion where a woman wants one. However, I cannot get behind any government policy aimed squarely at pushing women to undergo a medical procedure they don't want.

timeforanewstart child benefit in Germany is universal and uncapped for number of children. You get more, not less, for third and subsequent children. Its significantly more than UK child benefit. There is extra for children under 3, and an additional payment for children who don't use nursery before age 3. There was also a 200€ per child Corona payment recently, for extra expenses incurred due to homeschooling or Kindergarten being closed/ children home in lockdown - universal.

Unemployment benefit is linked to what you've paid in. "Herz 4" is a minimum basic available to those who haven't ever worked or haven't worked for ling enough, recently enough. However those with two full years or more of work and all relevant tax and state unemployment insurance payments get full salary for up to two years under certain conditions. After that Herz 4.

This thread is shockingly right wing and let them eat cake though - clearly most posters are utterly clueless and live in a tiny bubble. As an ex teacher and current learning disabilities and mental health support professional Im astounded at the ignorance displayed.

Insurance ffs.

We have all the insurance discussed here - so on a personal level yes, great, of course its the responsible choice.

Do so many people not grasp, however, that vast numbers of people have below average intelligence and no chance at all of understanding long term finances properly, or grasping the complexities of long term financial risk assessment?

Many people's lives are chaotic and lived in the moment. Not an exceptional tiny minority but millions.

Its the children in those families who suffer hunger and cold and lack of properly fitting clothes and school supplies etc etc when the family is in poverty.

What do the personal responsibility advocates propose for the millions of women who fall above the threshhold of learning disabilities qualifying for full support, but well below the level of intelligence (or mental health) to properly financially risk asses whether to terminate an unplanned pregnancy or not? Eugenics? Tough - let the children pay for the sins of the fathers so its "fair" for those of us privileged to have the capacity to think through and plan for our children's long term future?

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme child benefit in Britain is not universal, even for the first two children, let alone subsequent. Why does Germany need to encourage births more than Britain?
I would have thought Germans are fairly big on eco-credentials and limiting population growth.

Sorry but with the planet the way it is I don’t think it’s justifiable for anyone to have more than 2 children let alone the state supporting this choice. Know it’s unpopular view but I’m not shifting.

I know UK child benefit isn't universal. In Germany the logic is twofold: that children should not suffer poverty, and that an aging population is a time bomb for the country.

The birth rate in Germany is significantly lower than the UK, indicating that punitive financial measures by the state do not cause women to have fewer children at a population level.

We need to make men pay for their careless seed-spreading. No more dodging child maintenance, or letting them pay less than the actual financial burden of raising the child. It's not fair that women have to shoulder this.

Of course fathers should pay but this completely ignores the reality of the situation. Firstly many of those affected by the benefit cap were couples, although the cap was a strong incentive for families to split up. But even if they aren't, what if the father has disappeared, or is in jail, or sick, or just refuses. What if the father s abusive and uses his finances as a form of control? Or isn't even known, or perhaps its best he doesnt know. Or what if most commonly the father is as broke as the mother and despite best intentions could no way afford to completely cover the costs on £70 a week universal credit or the minimum wage? It's a simplistic solution, which completely ignores the complexities of these situations. Yes there should be pressure on fathers to pay, with money taken at source if necessary, but this must never be used as an excuse to deny support for lone parents on the basis the father will pick up the slack. Sadly some won't, some can't, and in some cases it's the last thing that the mother should be made dependent on. And we can afford it. This is a rich country, we should not be letting children and their mums go hungry or homeless under any circumstances, no matter what bad decisions she is judged to have made or how useless the father is.

MsTSwift people who are capable and willing to think through the consequences and mitigate against them or decide accordingly do limit family size or ensure they have finances in place (many very wealthy people have large numbers of children, and the wealthy use vastly more planetary resources than the very poor statistically).
Many people have children they can't afford anyway, because they can't or won't risk assess especially for possible eventualities in a decade's time or for a million other reasons. Millions of people just don't think very much at all, about next month let alone what might happen in five or fifteen years. Millions of people career from one minor crisis to another.

Should their children suffer for it, increasing the odds of them repeating the cycle and ultimately costing society? Or do you advocate mass sterilisation of women on benefits with two children? Or forced removal of 3rd and subsequent newborns based on parental employment / financial status?

The Government doesn't hold a bottomless pit of money. How can you say this is a rich country when our national debt is over £1.8 billion??!

It's not a right to bring children into the world.