The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) said over half of the women it surveyed who had an abortion during the pandemic, and who were aware of the two-child limit and likely to be affected by it, said the policy was “important in their decision-making around whether or not to continue the pregnancy.”Pity it didn't influence them to take contraception instead, but hey, what can you do?
“The two-child cap forces people into a corner of knowing they can’t provide versus abortion,” one mother said. “Although I understand it is not the government’s responsibility to be financially responsible for parents having children, I also felt that thanks to this rule I was forced to make this decision.” Another mother told BPAS: “If there was no two-child limit, I would have kept the baby, but I couldn’t afford to feed and clothe it … I’ve really struggled to come to terms with my decision.”Cry me a river. There were plenty of other choices you could have made. Covid hasn't made contraception available, has it?
And the 'Guardian' - usually supportive of abortion as a 'woman's right to choose' - seems to be a little perturbed by this. Surely, it's in favour? Especially as it's actual working government policy?
BPAS called for the two-child limit to be scrapped.
Wait, what?
“If the government does not want to see more women feeling forced into a corner between financial hardship or ending an otherwise wanted pregnancy, they must revoke the two-child limit as a matter of urgency,” said Katherine O’Brien, BPAS associate director of campaigns. “The two-child limit is a cruel and unnecessary policy which expects families to make impossible choices. The limit now affects over 1 million children and is rapidly driving up child poverty. In the midst of a pandemic and jobs crisis, it is particularly callous to continue to pursue this punitive policy,” said Jonathan Reynolds, Labour’s shadow social security secretary.You can both sit and swivel. I don't want to pay for people to breed willy-nilly and stick me with the bill..
What the government should do is scrap the child allowance. If you have them, you pay for them. Fully.
ReplyDeleteA certain section of Huddersfield residents is visibly pressing forward with a breeding programme which threatens to totally eclipse the white majority in a matter of a few years.
ReplyDeleteThe typical woman belonging to this section, is heavily pregnant, pushes a double pram with two or three toddlers in tow. The progeny count is swollen by more at school/hospital; imported grandparents and additional wives from the homeland.
And the Labour council is itching to start a new council build scheme, pampering to intentional overcrowding with the provision of state assisted 5 bedroomed homes. The likes of Councillors Shabir Pandor, Masood Ahmed and Gulfam Asif are keen to see more of our taxes put to this essential relief for these underprivileged communities.
Can't agree more: I can't afford any more to wander off to the local for a jolly session (mad 'scientists' permitting) - but if I went and ordered 5 or 6 pints, and expected the taxpayer to fork out for it I suspect I'd be given very short shrift. Quite rightly so.
ReplyDeleteI am amazed at the fantastic level of immaculate conceptions we have these days. Not too long ago almost all children had a male parent called a father who helped to support and raise them. A silly outdated idea now of course but at least it didn't burden the tax payers with the responsibility of paying for other peoples children. Funny how those that pay their own bills and support their own children can afford to have so few these days isn't it.
ReplyDeleteTed Treen your so out of touch with things. You need to develop a dependence on alcohol then when your registered as dependent you can get an allowance to help you buy it. Better yet live with another registered alcoholic and you can both claim carers allowance for looking after each other. You can't work because of your drinking so you will get unemployment pay and your rent money plus reduced council tax as well. All these income streams should go a long way to pay for your drinking. I was told all this by some people who are experts at soaking the tax payers and never working. Trust me there is a whole world we know very little about out there. Bottoms up!
ReplyDeleteThe 2 child limit does not affect entitlement to child benefit, state healthcare or state education. Nor does it affect entitlement to child support if the father, typically, is not around. The policy does not make it illegal to provide for a child using resources from its older siblings, or charity or the grandparents or extended network of family or friends.
ReplyDeleteIt must be an amazing policy to be operating at the level of granularity which is being complained of here.
"Pity it didn't influence them to take contraception instead, but hey, what can you do"?
ReplyDeleteBaby steps...........
I'll get my coat ;-)
"What the government should do is scrap the child allowance. If you have them, you pay for them. Fully."
ReplyDeleteI assume that would be akin to suggesting we stop paying unemployment benefit. Might be worth doing it just for the LOLs, though...
"And the Labour council is itching to start a new council build scheme..."
This is not a problem we can ever build our way out of. Land is finite.
"...but if I went and ordered 5 or 6 pints, and expected the taxpayer to fork out for it I suspect I'd be given very short shrift. "
You could get elected?
"I am amazed at the fantastic level of immaculate conceptions we have these days."
No longer just for Christmas!
"You need to develop a dependence on alcohol then when your registered as dependent you can get an allowance to help you buy it."
ReplyDeleteI thought you were kidding. But...
"It must be an amazing policy to be operating at the level of granularity which is being complained of here."
Quite!
"Baby steps...........
I'll get my coat ;-)"
🤣
I was amazed you could actually get taxpayer money to buy booze Julia but check it out it seems to be true. As it seems are all the other benefits of an alcoholic life style at the tax payers expense. You couldn't make it up could you.
ReplyDelete