This is the title of a recent opinion piece in the Guardian website by Polly Toynbee.  The article discusses the ramifications of the policy of the UK government deciding not to provide Child Support to any children after the second child.  The article maintains that the result of this is that women are suffering – through the implied encouragement to have an abortion if they fall pregnant when they already have two children.  Notably – this pressure is falling on those with insufficient income to be able to support a third child without the support provided by government.

(I will leave aside for a moment the fact that Polly Toynbee thinks that this is a situation that only affects women – yes, the right to choose to have an abortions remains a right of women only, however I would contend that it is not only women who want to have children, or who raise children – and that to think otherwise is sexist).

From a purely financial perspective then, according to Polly Toynbee the combination of tax credits and welfare support given by the government can amount to £2,900 per year.  The article maintains then that the removal of this sum could push many families into poverty…  this may well be true, however it should be given context with the information that this amount of money is not enough in itself to raise a child.  Nursery care alone can be expected to cost £5,000 per year (UK average prices are £125 per week for 25 hours).  Not to mention nappies (even the cheapest would cost £600 per year) and milk formula (£600 again).  The implication then is that any decision to have even a first child comes with the understanding that the family finances will be worsened – even if supplemented marginally by government aid.  The choice for the third child represents merely a greater reduction – but no different from the decision for the first two children.  (Perhaps then the amount of the aid is the real oppression in this and not the cut-off at the third child…)

This leads us the point then that this ‘encouragement’ to abortion represents a repression of women’s rights, specifically the right to have as many children as they want.  The article refers to a study which concludes that women are having less children than they would like.  A cursory analysis of this study indicates that in fact it admits its own flaws inasmuch that asking a woman how many children she thinks she should be allowed to have is different to asking a woman how many she wants to have – the former being an expression of a right, and the second a desire.  Additionally there is the time factor, which affects the answer depending on when the question is asked. The study also indicates that other factors influence the fact that a woman may end up having less children that initially thought desirable such as a career; and of course, we can all change our minds – that too is a choice Polly!  (Where is the study that asks men how many children they should be allowed to have?)

Taking everything at face value, accepting that indeed women are having less children than they want, and that this is being pushed by a financial pressure brought on by a lack of governmental support…  there is a question here which has been avoided throughout this discussion: should we even be allowed to have as many children as we want?  (If so, should this be applied to everything?  can I have as many houses as I want? as many tax-free savings accounts as I want?).  This entire argument is suggestive of the fact that because something can be done, it should be allowed to be done.  This is nothing more that the argument ‘might is right’ – as applied to procreation.  Humans are physically capable of hitting and killing each other yet we impose rules around that – is that an oppression?  Perhaps then we might also consider whether or not simply having as many children as we want is acceptable?

I will not even try to pretend that the UK policy is intended to reduce the birth rate so that we can manage population size (the policy was implemented by Conservative MPs many of whom have up to 6 children themselves), but it may be an unintended consequence.  More importantly, it may be the more important question.  Perhaps we should actively question the impact on society of all of our actions, rather than simply saying that because I am physically capable of having children that I should be entitled to have as many as I like?

I would contend that the problem with the UK policy is not that it is oppression, but that is is unfairly applied.  It may well have the consequence of limiting births amongst the poorer families in society, and as such can be seen to be yet another unfairness borne by the poorest. Whereas if a two-child policy were to be applied it should be applied across the board – to everyone regardless of financial status.  The oppression against poor families is indeed a symptom of this policy, but not because of the financial argument – the oppression comes from treating people in different financial situations differently.  Applied to the whole country, this law would not be an oppression against women (or men!!) or even the poor, it would merely represent another condition of British society – like not being able to kill people.

This situation is not something created by this law, I would expect that poorer families have always been more likely to have to contend with the decision whether or not to have a child than richer families – perhaps we should target that ‘oppression’ too.

This is a perfect example of facile argumentation intended only to incite a reaction – it is symptomatic of modern ‘journalism’ and only encourages us to think around problems rather than addressing what may be the heart of the issues we face as a society.