Should abortions be free?

Original post by sleepysnooze

then the funds necessary to run such a case would be directed to the guilty party. and whatever fees they are unable to pay throughout their lifetime will be forwarded to either the father, or eventually (down the line), the tax payer, but again, this is *obviously* cheaper than the maintenance of a child + their own expenses as a care taker that they can claim, for 18 or even more years.

If the guilty party cannot afford to pay £700 for the abortion then how are they going to be able to afford thousands of pounds for legal fees, prison fees, birthing costs, NHS funds for the child, school places etc etc.
What happens if the father cannot afford it either? Do we put him in prison? Then who pays for his prison fees and his legal fees if he cannot afford it?
We could either charge the taxpayer £700, or we could charge them thousands.

okay then let's say that they will have to pay the £700 over a certain length of time. problem solved.

But bringing a case against them, filing the evidence, sending them to prison and paying for the birthing fees and other fees for the child will cost far, far more than £700.

you're assuming they will never have a job though (and I'm not adding any interest to the total), and if they will never have a job, how are they "possibly" innocent of such a hypothetical crime of financial negligence? :|

They are not going to have a job if they go to prison. Also it makes them far less employable after. The annual cost for a prisoner in the UK is £40,000. The tax payer would have to fund that. Then it ends up costing us far more than £700.

you're making this far more complicated than it's worth. however complex my idea is, you're just pretending it's more complicated than it actually is. and sometimes, complicated problems require complicated solutions.

I'm not making this more complicated then its worth. I'm simply pointing out how your idea would cost the tax payer far, far more than simply paying for the abortion.

Reply 164

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by doctorwhofan98

Contraception - multiple types at the same time, even - can be used yet pregnancy can still occur; it's not just people being lazy. Even then, people can make mistakes; how would, say, a student be able to afford an abortion or raise a child?

And what about cases of rape? You could say abortions could be free when there's a convicted rapist, but not all sexual assault is reported, not everything leads to a conviction, and a trial could run on long enough that an abortion wouldn't be viable, and only the richest (who, incidentally, would be the most financially equipped to raise a child) would be able to afford the abortion.

If the NHS is strained, it needs more funding. The solution isn't to harm both the victims of sexual assault and anyone who isn't rich enough to afford an abortion.

You do know there used to be laws dictating when abortion could and could not legally occur, right? There is no reason why similar things could not be done for the provision of free abortions.

Reply 165

Original post by Bornblue

If the guilty party cannot afford to pay £700 for the abortion then how are they going to be able to afford thousands of pounds for legal fees, prison fees, birthing costs, NHS funds for the child, school places etc etc.

um, so you're seriously saying that there are people who can't afford something like a month's wage on the min. wage...over their life time. pretty remote.

What happens if the father cannot afford it either? Do we put him in prison? Then who pays for his prison fees and his legal fees if he cannot afford it?
We could either charge the taxpayer £700, or we could charge them thousands.

well if the father has £700 for the abortion, and he intended for the woman to use that money to have the abortion, and she didn't comply, then he's free of blame.

But bringing a case against them, filing the evidence, sending them to prison and paying for the birthing fees and other fees for the child will cost far, far more than £700.

so the obvious incentive for the potential mother is to not have a child, via the cost of an abortion which *does* cost the £700 and no more :| that's the whole idea here. logical incentives.

They are not going to have a job if they go to prison. Also it makes them far less employable after. The annual cost for a prisoner in the UK is £40,000. The tax payer would have to fund that. Then it ends up costing us far more than £700.

household conditional detention then - they can work, but must then return home immediately without unnecessary outside contact. repeat until funds are paid. no interest payments necessary too. I've already said that part but I'm wondering if you registered...
and another solution that I've raised - lower the quality of prisons if necessary - at least for these criminals.

I'm not making this more complicated then its worth. I'm simply pointing out how your idea would cost the tax payer far, far more than simply paying for the abortion.

you really are though.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 166

I

Original post by sleepysnooze

um, so you're seriously saying that there are people who can't afford something like a month's wage on the min. wage...over their life time. pretty remote.

well if the father has £700 for the abortion, and he intended for the woman to use that money to have the abortion, and she didn't comply, then he's free of blame.

But your argument was that if a woman cannot afford to bring up a child she should be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. Even if they can afford the £700 over months and years then they would not be able to afford to bring the child up. That would mean that they would have to be prosecuted, charged and imprisoned which would cost us far more than £700. It costs us £40,000 a year for a prisoner.

so the obvious incentive for the potential mother is to not have a child, via the cost of an abortion which *does* cost the £700 and no more :| that's the whole idea here. logical incentives.

But if they cannot afford it, it will end up costing the tax payer tens of thousands in legal fees and prison fees, as well as costs for the child.

household conditional detention then - they can work, but must then return home immediately without unnecessary outside contact. repeat until funds are paid. no interest payments necessary too. I've already said that part but I'm wondering if you registered...
and another solution that I've raised - lower the quality of prisons if necessary - at least for these criminals.

Even household detention and surveillance would cost us a huge amount in comparison to paying for an abortion. Again, we'd be losing money.

you really are though.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that your proposal would cost us huge amounts more than it would save us.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 167

Original post by Bornblue

I
But your argument was that if a woman cannot afford to bring up a child she should be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. Even if they can afford the £700 over months and years then they would not be able to afford to bring the child up. That would mean that they would have to be prosecuted, charged and imprisoned which would cost us far more than £700. It costs us £40,000 a year for a prisoner.

I've addressed this. would you like me to say it a second time for your needs?

But if they cannot afford it, it will end up costing the tax payer tens of thousands in legal fees and prison fees, as well as costs for the child.

which they'll pay, over time, like I've explained. on top of the proposal of cutting the costs of prisons either way.

Even household detention and surveillance would cost us a huge amount in comparison to paying for an abortion. Again, we'd be losing money.

which *they* will pay over time. I accounted for all of this. now you're just ignoring me. if they can't afford £700 over the span of their entire lifetime, what *can* they afford? ever?

I'm not. I'm pointing out that your proposal would cost us huge amounts more than it would save us.

nope

Reply 168

Original post by sleepysnooze

which they'll pay, over time, like I've explained. on top of the proposal of cutting the costs of prisons either way.

You said if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they should be prosecuted and imprisoned. To put someone in prison for a year costs the taxpayer £40 000. Are you saying that if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they will be able to pay the £40,000 in prison fees plus the thousands in court costs, plus the thousands it costs the NHS to vaccinate and that the child and the thousands it costs the tax payer to give them a school place.

All of that adds up to way over £700.
This will lose us huge amounts of money.

You may want to cut prions costs but unless you can reduce them to less than 700 we would be losing a massive amount of money. Do tell me how you plan to cut the costs of prisons from over 40,000 to under 700?

which *they* will pay over time. I accounted for all of this. now you're just ignoring me. if they can't afford £700 over the span of their entire lifetime, what *can* they afford? ever?

nope

But you proposed imprisoning people because they can't afford it. Now you're claiming that those who are imprisoned should repay the 40,000 a year it costs to keep them in prison on the basis that they can afford it? How does that work out?

You're argument is that people should pay for abortions and if they cannot afford it then they should be charged, and imprisoned. That would cost the taxpayer far far more than simply funding all abortions.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 169

Original post by Bornblue

You said if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they should be prosecuted and imprisoned. To put someone in prison for a year costs the taxpayer £40 000. Are you saying that if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they will be able to pay the £40,000 in prison few, plus the thousands in court costs, plus the thousands it costs the NHS to vaccinate and that the child and the thousands it costs the tax payer to give them a school place.

All of that adds up to way over £700.
This will lose us huge amounts of money.

You may want to cut prions costs but unless you can reduce them to less than 700 we would be losing a massive amount of money. Do tell me how you plan to cut the costs of prisons from over 40,000 to under 700?

But you proposed imprisoning people because they can't afford it. Now you're claiming that those who are imprisoned should repay the 40,000 a year it costs to keep them in prison on the basis that they can afford it? How does that work out?

You're argument is that people should pay for abortions and if they cannot afford it then they should be charged, and imprisoned. That would cost the taxpayer far far more than simply funding all abortions.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 170

Original post by Bornblue

You said if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they should be prosecuted and imprisoned.

I thought you negotiated conditional household arrest from me...?

To put someone in prison for a year costs the taxpayer £40 000.

so lower the costs of prisons - I've said this to you already. that's barely even relevant because hardly any women would even end up there via this law because the incentive to *not* break it is very influential, seeing as women are humans who live via incentives.

Are you saying that if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they will be able to pay the £40,000 in prison fees plus the thousands in court costs, plus the thousands it costs the NHS to vaccinate and that the child and the thousands it costs the tax payer to give them a school place.

what kind of parent are they going to be if they deliberately have a child when they know they can't afford to have it though? why should they be the one to be the guardian if they're a delinquent without a sense of responsibility? what are you trying to tell me? that they *are*? really? and what kind of child will they likely grow up to be? simply, the incentives I'm putting into this system means that the child won't even be born in the first place - you seem to be putting emphasis completely away from this fact - why? incentives run our society. incentives run our lives. why don't incentives run people and society on *this* front? what is your reason? are you stressing the importance of a vast, vast minority? it really does look like it. and with *far*, *far*, fewer irresponsible births, this will cost the tax payer *LESS*. this is irregardless of all the other cuts i.e. prisons. why aren't you acknowledging that?

You may want to cut prions costs but unless you can reduce them to less than 700 we would be losing a massive amount of money. Do tell me how you plan to cut the costs of prisons from over 40,000 to under 700?

no? where did I say that? you seem to be assuming that it *must* be £700 (for the cost of prisons per year for one inmate) but why? they can pay over their lifetime.

But you proposed imprisoning people because they can't afford it. Now you're claiming that those who are imprisoned should repay the 40,000 a year it costs to keep them in prison on the basis that they can afford it? How does that work out?

*sigh*<
I have proposed, again, for the fourth(?) time now, to drastically cut the costs of prisons anyway! and with this law in place, fewer people will be having children anyway! what are you suggesting? that the rate of births will be the same as it is now? what? :|

You're argument is that people should pay for abortions and if they cannot afford it then they should be charged, and imprisoned. That would cost the taxpayer far far more than simply funding all abortions.

nooooope. I've explained all this. if necessary, go back and read it again. I've literally accounted for everything you've listed multiple times, and you are failing to see the reality of the situation.

Reply 171

Original post by Brahmin of Booty

Also most of aspects of modern Western society those on the left love, i.e. feminism, welfare all have their roots in new Testament ethics.

which ones?

Reply 172

Original post by sleepysnooze

I thought you negotiated conditional household arrest from me...?

so lower the costs of prisons - I've said this to you already. that's barely even relevant because hardly any women would even end up there via this law because the incentive to *not* break it is very influential, seeing as women are humans who live via incentives.

what kind of parent are they going to be if they deliberately have a child when they know they can't afford to have it though? why should they be the one to be the guardian if they're a delinquent without a sense of responsibility? what are you trying to tell me? that they *are*? really? and what kind of child will they likely grow up to be? simply, the incentives I'm putting into this system means that the child won't even be born in the first place - you seem to be putting emphasis completely away from this fact - why? incentives run our society. incentives run our lives. why don't incentives run people and society on *this* front? what is your reason? are you stressing the importance of a vast, vast minority? it really does look like it. and with *far*, *far*, fewer irresponsible births, this will cost the tax payer *LESS*. this is irregardless of all the other cuts i.e. prisons. why aren't you acknowledging that?

no? where did I say that? you seem to be assuming that it *must* be £700 (for the cost of prisons per year for one inmate) but why? they can pay over their lifetime.

*sigh*<
I have proposed, again, for the fourth(?) time now, to drastically cut the costs of prisons anyway! and with this law in place, fewer people will be having children anyway! what are you suggesting? that the rate of births will be the same as it is now? what? :|

nooooope. I've explained all this. if necessary, go back and read it again. I've literally accounted for everything you've listed multiple times, and you are failing to see the reality of the situation.

I'm really confused as to what you are arguing about now and I think you are too.
Let's try and get some clarity.

It costs the tax payer £700 for someone to have an abortion. You are arguing that we should make people pay for abortions to save money. Some people will be able to afford £700, many will not.
So what happens to those who cannot afford it? It costs the NHS roughly £1000 in birthing costs to deliver a baby and that's given to everyone. On top of that the child will be entitled to use of the NHS, childcare, a school place etc. That will cost the tax payer for more than £700.

Then you said that people who cannot afford to bring up a child should be charged and imprisoned or pit on house arrest. Again, the legal and prison costs would cost the tax payer huge amounts. And if someone can not afford to bring up a child, they will not be able to afford to pay 40,000 a year in prison costs plus legal aid, plus the costs for the state to bring a case.

So your solution to this was to drastically cut prison costs. So please tell me which area the cuts should be made in? Can you give a detailed answer. And how much, realistically can you cut them to?
And at what point do we declare a person cannot afford to bring up a baby?

All of this would be fare more expensive and far more complicated than simply paying for the abortion.
You also seems to forget that people's taxes go to the NHS so surely that would cover their abortion costs anyway?

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 173

Original post by Bornblue

I'm really confused as to what you are arguing about now and I think you are too.
Let's try and get some clarity.

It costs the tax payer £700 for someone to have an abortion. You are arguing that we should make people pay for abortions to save money. Some people will be blessed to afford £700, many will not.

why are you saying this though? how many people can't afford £700 over their entire lifetime? simply give me an estimate - that will at least advance this argument - very few people will be in that position so it's as if you're pulling at straws. if I said "okay, fine, for the 0.000(etc)1% of caes, the tax payer will pay for it" that would STILL mean that costs will be lowered in this department compared to the costs of child maintenance for the irresponsible parents!

So what happens to those who cannot afford it? It costs the NHS roughly £1000 in birthing costs to deliver a baby and that's given to everyone.

pretty much everybody will make use of these resources for child birth, save a low amount who don't raise kid(s). what percentage of the population will be on benefits for the rest of their life? yet you're making the comparison how?

On top of that the child will be entitled to use of the NHS, childcare, a school place etc. That will cost the tax payer for more than £700.

and there will be less kids in my system than today........again, I don't know how many times I need to reiterate that fact. if you massively disincentivise having a kid when you can't afford it, how will it cost *more*? I have no idea how you come to this conclusion.

Then you said that people who cannot afford to bring up a child should be charged and imprisoned or pit on house arrest. Again, the legal and prison costs would cost the tax payer huge amounts.

how many times have I said that the criminal should pay for this, though? a bunch of times. I said house arrest because they will be able to go to work and nothing else - hence, they will eventually pay back the money they costed. but again, they will be very likely to never even get into that position because the system causes this scenario to be waaay more trouble than it would ever possibly be worth. I'm not going to explain this to you anymore.

And if someone can not afford to bring up a child, they will not be able to afford to pay 40,000 a year in prison costs plus legal aid, plus the costs for the state to bring a case.

1) over their *lifetime* - you're just straight-up ignoring me. do you comprehend what "debt" means?
2) cheaper prisons. lower quality. less space. less resources. etc.

So your solution to this was to drastically cut prison costs. So please tell me which area the cuts should be made in? Can you give a detailed answer. And how much, realistically can you cut them to?
And at what point do we declare a person cannot afford to bring up a baby?

how is a detailed answer here specifically warranted? if I told you something like "smaller cells", "less costs for entertainment", "less plumming privileges", "more labour mandates", etc, are you just going to say "okay"? of course not - so why is this warranted when you're very likely just going to dismiss it anyway whether or not it is valid? I don't get it - why are you asking a question that you don't even care about?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 174

john2054

6

i am against abortion. i believe in the rights to life.

Reply 175

Original post by sleepysnooze

why are you saying this though? how many people can't afford £700 over their entire lifetime? simply give me an estimate - that will at least advance this argument - very few people will be in that position so it's as if you're pulling at straws. if I said "okay, fine, for the 0.000(etc)1% of caes, the tax payer will pay for it" that would STILL mean that costs will be lowered in this department compared to the costs of child maintenance for the irresponsible parents!

In Ireland abortion is illegal, yet their teenage pregnancy rate is almost as high as ours. That strongly counters your 'disincentive argument'. It doesn't prevent pregnancies, it simply prevents women from having abortions and this in turn costs the taxpayer a lot of money.

Plenty of people will be put off from having an abortion if they are really poor. £700 may not seem much to you, but it is to a lot of people. And if someone is put off from having an abortion then it will end up costing the tax payer thousands and thousands in subsequent fees. All it takes is a few people being put off having abortions to override the benefits of others paying.

If someone pays for an abortion it saves the tax payer £700, if someone is put off having an abortion it would likely cost the taxpayer tens of thousands in school fees and healthcare. Say this costs the tax payer £30,000 per baby born, then it means that even if 45 women pay for an abortion, if one doesn't, it will cost us more.

and there will be less kids in my system than today........again, I don't know how many times I need to reiterate that fact. if you massively disincentivise having a kid when you can't afford it, how will it cost *more*? I have no idea how you come to this conclusion.

Where is your evidence that this will work? Again, the teenage pregnancy rate in ireland is almost as high as in the UK and they criminalize abortion.

how many times have I said that the criminal should pay for this, though? a bunch of times. I said house arrest because they will be able to go to work and nothing else - hence, they will eventually pay back the money they costed. but again, they will be very likely to never even get into that position because the system causes this scenario to be waaay more trouble than it would ever possibly be worth. I'm not going to explain this to you anymore.

So you are sending a woman to prison because she is so poor but you are claiming that they will be able to pay back £40,000? That could take them decades to pay off and many probably will never pay that off. And who pays in the mean time? Oh yeah, the tax payer.

2) cheaper prisons. lower quality. less space. less resources. etc.

how is a detailed answer here specifically warranted? if I told you something like "smaller cells", "less costs for entertainment", "less plumming privileges", "more labour mandates", etc, are you just going to say "okay"? of course not - so why is this warranted when you're very likely just going to dismiss it anyway whether or not it is valid? I don't get it - why are you asking a question that you don't even care about?

If you are going to make wild, broadbrush claims like 'i'd massively reduce prison costs' then it is not unreasonable to ask how you would do this and how much by. So how much less should we pay for entertainment? How much less should we pay for cells? How much less should we pay for plumbing? And if we don't have plumbing, it increases the risk of diseases and that will cost us money to treat them.

Please, let's see your workings.

Again, who goes to prison? What's the cut off point?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 176

Original post by Bornblue

In Ireland abortion is illegal, yet their teenage pregnancy rate is almost as high as ours. That strongly counters your 'disincentive argument'. It doesn't prevent pregnancies, it simply prevents women from having abortions and this in turn costs the taxpayer a lot of money.

women in ireland go to the UK, via freedom of movement, and then get an abortion. do you really think that these kinds of things are accounted for in official figures? honestly? I'm sorry. but no. that's ridiculous. plus, at least you're admitting that, at the *very* least, they have less teen pregnancies.

Plenty of people will be put off from having an abortion if they are really poor. £700 may not seem much to you, but it is to a lot of people. And if someone is put off from having an abortion then it will end up costing the tax payer thousands and thousands in subsequent fees. All it takes is a few people being put off having abortions to override the benefits of others paying.

...why are you ignoring me? this statement is as if you didn't read what I've already told you :| why even bother replying to me if you can't actually address what I said with rationality?

If someone pays for an abortion it saves the tax payer £700, if someone is put off having an abortion it would likely cost the taxpayer tens of thousands in school fees and healthcare. Say this costs the tax payer £30,000 per baby born, then it means that even if 45 women pay for an abortion, if one doesn't, it will cost us more.

oh my word...what is the point in talking to you?
disincentivisation = less kids = less costs to the NHS and school system.
indemnity. debt. time-based payment. eventual payment.
address this^ particularly please because you never did before. you pretended that at least one of these factors in each of your replies didn't apply, about which I'm very confused because why even bother talking anymore if you're just going to pretend like you're listening?

Where is your evidence that this will work? Again, the teenage pregnancy rate in ireland is almost as high as in the UK and they criminalize abortion.

so "it's not been tried therefore it can never be tried because we are yet to collect evidence of it applied" - in that case, the NHS would never have been established for the first time...poor argument, I must say

So you are sending a woman to prison because she is so poor but you are claiming that they will be able to pay back £40,000? That could take them decades to pay off and many probably will never pay that off. And who pays in the mean time? Oh yeah, the tax payer.

look, like I've told you: they (the irresponsible parent) are the principle payer. if, by the time they're, like, 80, *then* the tax payer will come in. and even in this case, the tax payer is paying a lot less because there isn't a kid's 18 year long childhood to pay for, plus all the other parental expenses...

If you are going to make wild, broadbrush claims like 'i'd massively reduce prison costs' then it is not unreasonable to ask how you would do this and how much by. So how much less should we pay for entertainment? How much less should we pay for cells? How much less should we pay for plumbing? And if we don't have plumbing, it increases the risk of diseases and that will cost us money to treat them.

you're just stalling now because you know completely that it's a goalless question, like I already explained. let's say I said "let's cut entertainment by 100%", what are you going to tell me in response? "oh that won't be enough"? how would you possibly be in the position to know that? and by the way, this isn't my focus - this is a completely sideline consideration - even if we cut prison costs and as if by magic therestill wouldn't be enough money to pay for the leftovers of what the parent couldn't pay over their life time, this doesn't actually stop the fact that *most* of the money *will* be paid - mainly by the parent, and some (very small amounts) by the tax payer, because obviously it would be stupid to say that most of these people would *never* get the money over like 60 years when 1 year of working on the minimum wage gives you £13,000~ - and also: what was it that you claimed would be the court costs? something like £40,000? how did you even come to that conclusion? if I'm to tell you all these cost to be cut, then at the *very* ****ing least you can go ahead and tell me this one - it was your argument all along to explain pointless things but now *this* is actually something that is considerable because it was your attempt to discredit the idea that a person could pay for it over their lifetime (and even with the figure of £40k, they could. very easily. over their lifetime, of course.)

Please, let's see your workings.

let's see *yours*, like I just said. you were the one who began quoting most likely false figures.

Again, who goes to prison? What's the cut off point?

ahhhh
and here's where you say that subjectivity (to caluclate a fair amount a person needs to house and raise a child per year) isn't valid
ahhhhh
okay
so the kind of strategies used by the NHS to approximate costs, funds, etc, are also, by this logic, invalid.

look, this is just stupid. it isn't even funny. I give you all these answers and it's like I'm talking to a wall. you look right past all my explanations and pretend like they're not there so this is just going nowhere. anybody who will click on this can read this for themselves.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 177