I think in principle, the plan to cap child benefit to two kids is a good idea. If it can encourage some folk to actually do some financial planning, rather than thinking "it's fine I'll just get benefits" then that's all good to me.
The "rape clause" though. It's a difficult one. On one hand, of course you don't want rape victims to be forced to recount something they'd rather not with an admin person, on an application form. On the other hand...is it not fair that someone who has a 3rd child due to being raped can still claim child benefit, despite it being a 3rd child?
I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's all a bit too emotive in my opinion, which is obviously due to the word rape. To quote pacoluna's post "Rape should never run in tandem with financial decisions it's an absolute disgrace"...well aye I get it, but I do think a child benefit cap is a good idea, and I also think that there should be circumstances where it's not enforced, such as when the 3rd child is the consequence of rape.