Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Should abortions be free?

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    :lol: 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.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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.
    The wealthy Irish women come to the UK to have abortions. The ones who cannot afford it do not. They end up costing the taxpayer far more than if they would have had an abortion.



    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?
    Your argument has no logic. Even if 45-50 women pay for an abortion, if one cannot afford to and has the child, then it will end up being a net cost to the tax payer.

    It costs £1000 alone for the birth of a child. It costs thousands each year to allow them access to the NHS and the schooling system.
    The fundamental flaw in your plan is that it will end up costing us far, far more than simply paying £700 for the abortion.

    Then you brought up the fact that people who cannot afford a baby should be imprisoned, which would cost the tax payer well over £40,000, as opposed to £700. Then you argued that over time they will pay it back.

    You seem deluded. You do realise it is estimated that over half of students will NEVER be able to pay back their tuition fees, and they're only around £30,000. It means the tax payer foots the bill. If someone is so poor that they cannot afford £700 and they live on the breadline what hope do they have of being able to afford potentially £40,000- £60,000? If you only earn enough to put food on the table, where are you getting all this money from?

    It will end up with huge sums being written off and guess who foots the bill? Oh yes it's 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...
    But who pays the £40-60,000 in prison fees initially if the woman has no money? Oh yes the tax payer, again.


    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?

    This is pure nonsense. If someone is so poor that they cannot afford the £700 to pay for an abortion, they are not going to be able to afford £40,000 per year for prison.

    Are you seriously telling me someone who lives on the minimum wage and can afford little more than rent and food, will be able to pay back £40,000?

    As for court costs, I did not say they would cost £40,000. That's the amount it costs per prisoner per year. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-per-place.pdf

    That's on top of the costs they'd be asked to pay back for court fees and for legal aid. If they can't afford it, the taxpayer again foots the bill.




    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.
    I'm simply asking you at what point someone should be thrown in prison. You have argued that if you cannot afford to bring up a child you should be prosecuted. So at what point would that be? You seem to get very offended when you are asked to give further details and support for your proposal.


    You haven't answered any questions. You simply keep saying that if we imprison people who cannot afford to bring up a child, that it will save the taxpayer money because despite the fact they are so poor, they will somehow manage to pay back 40-60 grand at least.

    Your great answer to that is to simply cut prison costs, yet you haven't provided any details or any genuine policies to show that this is feasible and would save us money in the long term.

    You've also spectacularly failed to acknowledge the fact that we all pay taxes when we start working and that goes to things like abortions anyway.

    It costs the country 52 million a year on abortions. Our overall NHS bill is 116.4 billion. That means that funding for abortions account for less than 1/2250 of our total health spending.
    The amount we'd save, would be very, very little in real terms and that's assuming everyone could afford an abortion who wants one. If even one out of 50 cannot, and therefore do not have an abortion, it will end up costing the taxpayer more money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    In 2015, 98% of abortions were funded by the NHS. 38% of them were to women who had already had one or more abortions. Repeat abortions costs £1m a week.

    Just 2% were carried out under the grounds that the child would be seriously handicapped.

    It is estimated that each abortion costs £680. This figure rises if terminations occur in the 2nd trimester.

    http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pa...tatistics.aspx

    Should the taxpayer continue to fund other people's mistakes?
    Are women using abortion as a contraceptive? Should there be tighter restrictions?
    The way you have used the term mistakes is unsettling. Do the taxpayers realise what they are paying for. Sometimes pregnancy is the product of child molestation, rape, peer pressure etc. If abortion was not free people that are not financially able would be forced to have babies. Babies that could possibly be handicapped, unwanted, accidental. The amount tax payers would have to pay for these children that are put into care, or neglected is a lot more in comparison to what they would have to pay to get them aborted. If these children were brought into this world because there parents did not have the money to decide if they wanted them- it can lead to them be neglected and therefore spiralling down a road of crime which would therefore lead to more money for the tax payers. Abortion is a choice and people should not have to pay for this choice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it depends on the reason.

    First of all, abortions should be free to students for obvious reasons. Having a baby during your studies will seriously affect your education in a negative way.
    I think abortions should be free if the pregnant woman was raped. She has suffered through a great ordeal, and she shouldn't have to pay to have the child aborted, especially if she lacks the money.

    I guess failed contraception would be a cause for a free abortion. However, I guess it would be tricky to prove that your contraception genuinely failed and that you weren't just irresponsible.

    These are my opinions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Lol at you being obtuse. 'Funding people's mistakes', please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Making people pay for abortions is a horrible idea...

    Hypothetical situation; women in poverty gets pregnant, cant afford an abortion so must resort to a) having a backstreet abortion b) having the child put in care, stressing and already overstretched system or c) keep a baby she doesnt want and spends her whole life resenting.
    Hi I agree with your post, as a teenage girl 25 years ago i had an abortion under a general I was about 13weeks and believe me I couldn't have paid for it , I found I was pregnant 4 weeks after my mum had died and one week before my dad threw me out (he never knew I was pregnant he had some sort of mental breakdown and didn't want to know me because I reminded him of my mum) at the time I had no way of supporting myself and was sleeping on friends sofas. My boyfriend was useless and didn't want to know I never saw him again thankfully, I went for an abortion on the nhs of which I'm grateful the service was free and available because I didn't have the means to pay for the procedure and if it hadn't been available to me at that time I dread to think what would have happened to me. (Whilst I'm still so grateful for it being free on the nhs I have to comment that. I was still very judged by the staff who dealt with me a that time the consultant said" don't ever let me see you here again"etc I was just another pregnant teenage girl that had slept around and using abortion as contraception in his eyes . I've since had two beautiful girls who know I had an abortion and don't judge me because they know the background ,one is a medical student herself and would be horrified if any part of the nhs would charge for procedures such as this and others . I regret being in that situation but I don't regret having an abortion it's saved my life at that time and should be freely available .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Artemis_)
    I think it depends on the reason.

    First of all, abortions should be free to students for obvious reasons. Having a baby during your studies will seriously affect your education in a negative way.
    I think abortions should be free if the pregnant woman was raped. She has suffered through a great ordeal, and she shouldn't have to pay to have the child aborted, especially if she lacks the money.

    I guess failed contraception would be a cause for a free abortion. However, I guess it would be tricky to prove that your contraception genuinely failed and that you weren't just irresponsible.

    These are my opinions.
    And yet proving rape would be easy 🙄 No, not gonna have any accusations of women crying rape to get free abortions. Because society has been so quick to believe survivor said thus far.

    And lest we interrupt the education of the mighty student! Why are non students irresponsible but student can have empathy and free abortions? Providing you're old enough to consent, I don't see why having a student card should really afford you any provisions the rest of the population are not given.

    In case it's not clear - my view is abortions should remain free and legal to all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It shouldn't be legal, let alone free.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I agree.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It depends on the circumstances. I believe that it should be free if: the woman is in physical danger, or the woman was forcibly impregnated. Although I agree that a woman should feel free to abort under any circumstances that they see fit (applying appropriate time restrictions), I don't think it should be unequivocally free.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    You don't know the reason for the abortion. It would cost far more to put the child into care, etc.
    I guess that justifies killing it for free! Logic not your forte, is it?

    *Damn, can anyone help me understand this person, this evil criminality? is there any other way of explaining the way this person thinks?
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.