Should abortions be free?

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    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?
    I imagine that forcing a child on a woman would drive them crazy; it should always be a yes without question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Should we stop paying for smokers who have lung cancer?
    I doubt you know this but smokers pay for the NHS more so than other people. They pay heavy taxes of tobacco products, almost 1000% what the cigs cost go to taxes to pretty much fund the smoke related diseases and clean up of the habit. i think the taxes = 10% of what the NHS is worth, but due to the taxes going up on a near weekly basis, it could be anywhere from 10%-20%. smoker do not use the NHS to even equal the amount of extra taxes they put in, so theyre paying since they smoke, rightfully so, but the taxes are too much, since they over cover for the treatment the smokers get. so should we stop paying for smokers ? Maybe if they got it for free, but they dont.. they pay more for it than you and non-smokers. Fat people dont give **** all to the NHS and are using a ton of resources, that would be a better example, but for some reason people do see being fat as a choice, since a minor about is due to health problems. Anyways on the topic, i would agree that if they had to pay for it, they might understand how much it cost the NHS and choice cheaper contraception; but i dont think itll work .. whos really gonna support it, i wont really. Also therell be massive problem due to it, such as fake abortion pill, which are in ireland and causes them many problems, the pills for abortion are pretty cheap as well.. also it could need to the return of back alley abortions for the poor, which is why its free nowadays since so many people died from it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    eh? No, I'd rather not bring a disabled child into the world. Is there anything seriously wrong with that?

    Your message to disabled children is it's better not to exist than to be disabled.

    If you ask any disabled child whether they'd rather be alive or aborted in the womb - what do you think they'd say?


    SS
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Methods of contraception aren't 100% effective, some people aren't properly educated, some people get raped, some people think they can't have children (health problems)...

    Abortion should be free. If I accidentally got pregnant, I wouldn't want the additional worry of having to try to find the funds to abort the baby. A lot more people would have children and have trouble raising them, it could cause all types of mental health issues.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    eh? No, I'd rather not bring a disabled child into the world. Is there anything seriously wrong with that?
    well said and nothing wrong with that, i have no idea how some people could want to bring a disabled child, that could live maybe 6 year in horrible pain... better to save both the child and yourself the pain. If a child could live up to 30-40, i could understand but at young ages, are they even really living a life or just alive .
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes it should.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    No because sometimes cancer isn't preventable. Having a child is totally preventable
    I said lung cancer for smokers...

    Should we pay the treatment of people that have caused road accidents?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I said lung cancer for smokers...

    Should we pay the treatment of people that have caused road accidents?
    Did you know that people who haven't touched a cigarette in their lives can still get cancer? It's unlikely but it still happens

    Yes because again, road accidents are not 99.9% preventable like getting pregnant is
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, the should because it's the cheaper option in the long run!
    Child benefits or child care if the children go into foster care would be far more expensive than the abortion! It's the better option! I guess if people had to pay they may be more careful but you can't garentee that and the situation may end up way worse with more unwanted children is bad situations where the parents aren't able to bring them up in a suitable environment and there would probably be a huge strain and foster care as more unwanted children are in the system! Especially with an already increasing population and overcrowding, it's the best option that they are free!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I don't see why the already pressurised NHS should have to pay for people being too stupid to buy a condom
    OMG? Seriously? So youd rather the child be supported untill 18+ by the taxpayer? Women (And MEN) make mistakes. Abortion is nearly always the last option. Its stressfull enough without asking them to pay for it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joshuamarv)
    OMG? Seriously? So youd rather the child be supported untill 18+ by the taxpayer? Women (And MEN) make mistakes. Abortion is nearly always the last option. Its stressfull enough without asking them to pay for it.
    No, I'd rather people take some responsibility for themselves and actually use contraception
    #3

    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    No, I'd rather people take some responsibility for themselves and actually use contraception
    With perfect usage, condoms are still only 98% effective. Should those 2% of people who's contraception fails be punished? And surely, the burden of paying for the abortion is much more likely to fall on the woman, and the man will pay nothing in many cases. Stupid idea. This isn't America.
    Offline

    2
    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?
    Yes definitely, I think what many people don't realise is the fact that actually allowing the child to go into care (if the woman was unable to look after the child adequately) would cost a hell of a lot more than an abortion. In my opinion it is completely the womans choice, and there are many reasons why women opt to abort, which some are too small minded to understand. For example, if a woman gets pregnant and knows she is not in a financial situation adequate enough to bring up a child, she won't also be able to afford an abortion if it was to be non-funded by the NHS. If abortion was made to be privatised, and people would have to pay for their own, it would be very extortionate and would probably cause an increase in 'back alley abortions' which are very dangerous for the women. At the end of the day, if a woman wants to have an abortion, she will have one, whether she carries it out herself in a back street or if it is done by a professional - personally I'd rather it'd be done by a professional who can ensure the safest, and best procedure with as little risks as possible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    No, I'd rather people take some responsibility for themselves and actually use contraception
    Making people pay for abortions will not do this. People have unprotected sex (aside from rape etc scenarios) because they think "it won't happen to me" - they already know pregnancy is a possibility but ignore that, and it's very unlikely that a remote "threat" of having to fork out for an abortion will change that behaviour. Certainly it won't change the behaviour of enough people to offset the massively increased costs of antenatal care, childbirth and then child benefits/care for all the children forced into existence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Did you know that people who haven't touched a cigarette in their lives can still get cancer? It's unlikely but it still happens
    I said "Lung cancer for smokers". It means that people who get lung cancer without smoking would still be covered.

    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Yes because again, road accidents are not 99.9% preventable like getting pregnant is
    Whilst the percentage of women unwillingly becoming pregnant (0.01%) seems insignifiant, it still means thousands of women every year.

    Stopping funding abortions will also mean that the most vulnerable women, mostly teenagers, rape victims, forced prostitutes, etc., will be the most impacted. I don't think that preventing teenage girls from getting abortion because they made a mistake is the way to go. We should on the contrary try to reduce teenage pregnancies as much as possible. The "burden" of abortion on the NHS is limited compared to cancer, or the cost put on social structures by unwanted children, as they are much less likely to have a successful life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    With perfect usage, condoms are still only 98% effective. Should those 2% of people who's contraception fails be punished? And surely, the burden of paying for the abortion is much more likely to fall on the woman, and the man will pay nothing in many cases. Stupid idea. This isn't America.
    As I said in a earlier post, those whose contraception fails should be eligible for free abortion as long as evidence can be supplied
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    As I said in a earlier post, those whose contraception fails should be eligible for free abortion as long as evidence can be supplied
    You want them to bring the broken condom in a plastic Baggie or something??? Kind of vile of you ask me...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I said "Lung cancer for smokers". It means that people who get lung cancer without smoking would still be covered.


    Whilst the percentage of women unwillingly becoming pregnant (0.01%) seems insignifiant, it still means thousands of women every year.

    Stopping funding abortions will also mean that the most vulnerable women, mostly teenagers, rape victims, forced prostitutes, etc., will be the most impacted. I don't think that preventing teenage girls from getting abortion because they made a mistake is the way to go. We should on the contrary try to reduce teenage pregnancies as much as possible. The "burden" of abortion on the NHS is limited compared to cancer, or the cost put on social structures by unwanted children, as they are much less likely to have a successful life.
    I'm not answering the same question 3 times. You've already had my answer

    I already said that rape victims would be covered. Teenagers aren't children, they know what they're doing, They shouldn't even be having sex until they're at least 16 in any case. Cancer is non preventable, it's caused by a random cell mutation that you don't have any power over. Conceiving is something you have 100% control over.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    Making people pay for abortions will not do this. People have unprotected sex (aside from rape etc scenarios) because they think "it won't happen to me" - they already know pregnancy is a possibility but ignore that, and it's very unlikely that a remote "threat" of having to fork out for an abortion will change that behaviour. Certainly it won't change the behaviour of enough people to offset the massively increased costs of antenatal care, childbirth and then child benefits/care for all the children forced into existence.
    Okay I understand that you are a pediatrician so I will bow to your superior knowledge in this case. In your opinion what would be the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Education doesn't seem to be working
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Okay I understand that you are a pediatrician so I will bow to your superior knowledge in this case. In your opinion what would be the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Education doesn't seem to be working
    I'm not a paediatrician, I'm an anaesthetist, but this is more about knowing human behaviour than medicine.

    Education and widespread availability of contraception is working - Britain's teen pregnancy rate is falling consistently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35761826 and the abortion rate is about steady, though with changing demographics (more older women having them now than previously).
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 11, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Would you prefer to be told about sex by your:
Useful resources

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.