Woman forced to terminate pregnancy due to benefit changes

okborednow

Just read this article in the mirror

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/it-wasnt-planned-very-wanted-12480380#comments-section

The basics are a woman already has 2 sons and got pregnant with a third child. When at 4 months pregnant she found out that under new laws the child tax credit etc only applies to the first 2 children. She and her partner are apparently barely getting by now and thus decided to terminate the pregnancy which was very upsetting for them as the child was wanted.

Obviously the tone of the article was one of outrage but am I the only one who thinks if you can’t afford to have a child without help from the government and you already have 2 children then you shouldn’t be getting pregnant in the first place? Before anyone dives in I know there are instances when contraception fails but that isn’t what happened here. Is this country really so messed up that people can only afford to have children now if they’re given handouts by the government which we all pay for?

alwaysskint96

this is in the discussion time forum

AylesburyDuck

okborednow wrote: »

Just read this article in the mirror

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/it-wasnt-planned-very-wanted-12480380#comments-section

The basics are a woman already has 2 sons and got pregnant with a third child. When at 4 months pregnant she found out that under new laws the child tax credit etc only applies to the first 2 children. She and her partner are apparently barely getting by now and thus decided to terminate the pregnancy which was very upsetting for them as the child was wanted.

Obviously the tone of the article was one of outrage but am I the only one who thinks if you can’t afford to have a child without help from the government and you already have 2 children then you shouldn’t be getting pregnant in the first place? Before anyone dives in I know there are instances when contraception fails but that isn’t what happened here. Is this country really so messed up that people can only afford to have children now if they’re given handouts by the government which we all pay for?

I'm in agreement with you on this, and its not like the 2 children rule hasnt been widely debated and know about, she's either had head in sand or didnt fully research exactly what she could claim.
Also the choice of words "Forced" dont sit well with me, she wasnt forced into anything it was still her final choice, and frankly diminishes the situation of other people who have faced much much worse situations than her and have had to terminate.

AylesburyDuck

alwaysskint96 wrote: »

this is in the discussion time forum

Not all people like to go in there!

Pollycat

Thread here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5838856/tough-choices

And no. You're not the only one.

And she wasn't "forced to have an abortion".
There were other options available to her.

Fireflyaway

My personal viewpoint is child benefit and tax credits should be stopped. The state and taxpayers should not be funding people's children. You have so much choice in this country. Work harder / get a better job / study for a better job / move locations / don't have so many children / live within your means etc.
I struggled when my baby was born but I sold the car, ate cheaply, didn't holiday, didn't buy clothes or eat out etc. You have to adjust. If you are relying on the government that's wrong. For centuries and still in the majority of the world parents are responsible for their kids, not the state.
yes, have benefits for the sick and disabled or if a hard working person loses their job. Benefits are meant to help you in times of need not to maintain a lifestyle you can't afford.

Kayalana99

Fireflyaway wrote: »

My personal viewpoint is child benefit and tax credits should be stopped. The state and taxpayers should not be funding people's children. You have so much choice in this country. Work harder / get a better job / study for a better job / move locations / don't have so many children / live within your means etc.
I struggled when my baby was born but I sold the car, ate cheaply, didn't holiday, didn't buy clothes or eat out etc. You have to adjust. If you are relying on the government that's wrong. For centuries and still in the majority of the world parents are responsible for their kids, not the state.
yes, have benefits for the sick and disabled or if a hard working person loses their job. Benefits are meant to help you in times of need not to maintain a lifestyle you can't afford.

I would love to agree with this on paper but you have to take into account people's circumstances. If a woman happily married got pregnant, and the father left suddenly with no family support, it is not always feasible even if working full-time with childcare costs that you can afford to live.

The system is flawed for certain though, and people should never rely on the goverment. If they wanted the 3rd baby I'm sure there were ways around it, but just not ones they wanted to do.

Starrystarrynight1

I think employers have a great role to play in our society. They seem to be paying such pitiful wages that people do end up reliant on the state to 'top up' their wages to be able to afford to live. Maybe if wages were better, not zero hours, gig economy jobs etc, then we wouldn't need tax credits so much. It's corporate welfare, really.

mattpaint

Starrystarrynight1 wrote: »

I think employers have a great role to play in our society. They seem to be paying such pitiful wages that people do end up reliant on the state to 'top up' their wages to be able to afford to live. Maybe if wages were better, not zero hours, gig economy jobs etc, then we wouldn't need tax credits so much. It's corporate welfare, really.

Maybe people should accept that they can't afford to have large families if they haven't the ability to earn more than basic wages?

Gavin83

Starrystarrynight1 wrote: »

I think employers have a great role to play in our society. They seem to be paying such pitiful wages that people do end up reliant on the state to 'top up' their wages to be able to afford to live. Maybe if wages were better, not zero hours, gig economy jobs etc, then we wouldn't need tax credits so much. It's corporate welfare, really.

Blame the minimum wage for the way this works now. You can't pay everyone good wages, it doesn't work. There will always be those who earn a poor salary, the minimum wage just ensures more people earn that poor salary with little hope of improving.

[Deleted User]

Starrystarrynight1 wrote: »

I think employers have a great role to play in our society. They seem to be paying such pitiful wages that people do end up reliant on the state to 'top up' their wages to be able to afford to live. Maybe if wages were better, not zero hours, gig economy jobs etc, then we wouldn't need tax credits so much. It's corporate welfare, really.

To be fair the only good thing about my fixed term job and what partly keeps me turning in is the pretty good salary (even without the luxury of commission earnt on top) I value it really as 'pretty danger' money when my immediate living area pays poorly. I am not asking asking the state to help until the day my contract is up. I wouldn't work in telesales and money collection that required results every single day worked for a basic alone of £7.50 no way hosesay, no matter what top up I could get!!

I did see a rather nice permanent job recently for 19.5k but I'm under no illusion that was for a minimum hourly week of 45 hrs to be worked.