Should abortions be free?

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    And what if you can't afford it? We would have thousands more births each year, each one costing us far more in birthing costs, childcare education etc than an abortion would.

    The lack of foresight of some people is astonishing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1) and you don't think babies cost more than abortions? so surely they will have an abortion out of a preference to not have to pay for a baby?
    2) do you not understand incentives over time? if you take away the incentive of free abortions (not having to pay) then people will be more careful and not have accidental pregnancies for the fear of the consequences - if I no longer had an NHS, for example, I'd be a lot more careful when playing contact sports, for instance, if it meant that I might have to pay for an injury with my own money
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) and you don't think babies cost more than abortions? so surely they will have an abortion out of a preference to not have to pay for a baby?
    2) do you not understand incentives over time? if you take away the incentive of free abortions (not having to pay) then people will be more careful and not have accidental pregnancies for the fear of the consequences - if I no longer had an NHS, for example, I'd be a lot more careful when playing contact sports, for instance, if it meant that I might have to pay for an injury with my own money
    It's far cheaper for the tax payer to pay for abortions than it is to pay child benefits, birthing support, school places etc. It saves us more money if we offer free abortions than if we don't.

    Do you really think people prefer abortions to other contraceptives? They are last resorts. And it still doesn't help us when we end up in the scenario of people who couldn't afford abortions.

    You are proposing this would work, the onus is on you to prove it would...


    Do you think smokers should have to pay for cancer treatment?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's far cheaper for the tax payer to pay for abortions than it is to pay child benefits, birthing support, school places etc. It saves us more money if we offer free abortions than if we don't.
    there are ways to completely disincentivise poor people having babies in the first place - i.e. laws that make it so that if you cannot afford them but still decide to have them then you get charged with gross negligence

    Do you really think people prefer abortions to other contraceptives? They are last resorts. And it still doesn't help us when we end up in the scenario of people who couldn't afford abortions.
    I never claimed it but they do make up some of the reasons for women having abortions - not being careful enough in terms of protection

    You are proposing this would work, the onus is on you to prove it would...
    proving what would work?

    Do you think smokers should have to pay for cancer treatment?
    of course, I can't believe you're even asking
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No.. In my opinion, if you don't want a baby, don't have sex without contraception. If you use contraception and it fails, you know the consequences. You should have to pay for them consequences. It's not as if you are oblivious to the fact sometimes contraceptives don't work. So no, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for it. Nor should they pay for child benefits if a parent cannot afford a child. I feel we live in a society that acc offers to much help already - in the sense that - people should deal with their own choices. Not all the time, but in this case, yeah.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Once again, you show your fundamentalist, illiberal and authoritarian side.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's not authoritarian. He doesn't want to ban it, albeit it would have the same effect for the lower class.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    there are ways to completely disincentivise poor people having babies in the first place - i.e. laws that make it so that if you cannot afford them but still decide to have them then you get charged with gross negligence



    I never claimed it but they do make up some of the reasons for women having abortions - not being careful enough in terms of protection



    proving what would work?



    of course, I can't believe you're even asking
    Right so if a woman has baby because a condom breaks then she should be fined and convicted? I'm guessing you think the man should too then?


    So the tax payer would end up having to pay for child as well as now having to pay for court cases and prison places? And what about legal aid too?

    Again, it would end up costing us far, far more than the tax payer simply paying for abortions.
    You really lack any kind of foresight.


    Your plan to save the tax payer money would end up costing us far, far more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewwww)
    No.. In my opinion, if you don't want a baby, don't have sex without contraception. If you use contraception and it fails, you know the consequences. You should have to pay for them consequences. It's not as if you are oblivious to the fact sometimes contraceptives don't work. So no, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for it. Nor should they pay for child benefits if a parent cannot afford a child. I feel we live in a society that acc offers to much help already - in the sense that - people should deal with their own choices. Not all the time, but in this case, yeah.
    And what happens when the woman cannot afford an abortion? Should we not allow her to use an NHS hospital to give birth? Should we not allow that child a place at school or access to the NHS? Should we not allow that child to have vaccinations?

    Your plan to save money would end up costing us far, far more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    And what happens when the woman cannot afford an abortion? Should we not allow her to use an NHS hospital to give birth? Should we not allow that child a place at school or access to the NHS? Should we not allow that child to have vaccinations?

    Your plan to save money would end up costing us far, far more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's not about saving money. I don't think money plays an integral part to whether or not it should acc be free. I think morality here is much more important. If the woman says 'Acc I can live with the consequences of my actions' she morally should either pay up for an abortion, or have the baby. If she has the baby, ofc the government pays for the NHS for it, and for school, bc the baby doesn't live to its mothers misfortune. Perhaps you're right though. Im no expert on this
    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 they should continue funding it what none religious argument is there to stop doing it?

    None


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I personally believe they should be charged at full price without NHS support.

    Although!
    If one wants an abortion for a genuine reason, for example, they baby will be heavily disabled and the parents won't be able to support, then this should be funded in my opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's far cheaper for the tax payer to pay for abortions than it is to pay child benefits, birthing support, school places etc. It saves us more money if we offer free abortions than if we don't.

    Do you really think people prefer abortions to other contraceptives? They are last resorts. And it still doesn't help us when we end up in the scenario of people who couldn't afford abortions.

    You are proposing this would work, the onus is on you to prove it would...


    Do you think smokers should have to pay for cancer treatment?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you were charged a portion of the total amount like previously mentioned, you'd avoid funding a child for 18yrs. You'd also avoid scrounging off the taxpayer to support your kid. If someone were to find out that they were pregnant and were in no position to care for a child, a payment of say £50 is really nothing in hindsight. In this instance, it would save the taxpayer money, it would save the NHS money, and it would save the pregnant woman's money.

    Well, repeat abortions heavily suggest that they're used in replace of contraceptives. If you can't afford it then you'll receive help. If you can (income assessment) then you pay.

    Deadly Cancer vs unwanted pregnancy? Yeah they're the same
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Right so if a woman has baby because a condom breaks then she should be fined and convicted? I'm guessing you think the man should too then?


    So the tax payer would end up having to pay for child as well as now having to pay for court cases and prison places? And what about legal aid too?

    Again, it would end up costing us far, far more than the tax payer simply paying for abortions.
    You really lack any kind of foresight.


    Your plan to save the tax payer money would end up costing us far, far more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If a woman gets pregnant and the condom breaks, then perhaps she'd be funded the first time as accidents happen. If this happens to the same woman another 1 or 2 times, she should pay. For the simple fact that she knows that condoms aren't effective for her yet she chooses to solely rely on them
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewwww)
    It's not about saving money. I don't think money plays an integral part to whether or not it should acc be free. I think morality here is much more important.
    So you just want the payment as a halfway house to banning it basically. Just that you're willing to specifically target poor people in the meantime.

    If she has the baby, ofc the government pays for the NHS for it, and for school, bc the baby doesn't live to its mothers misfortune.
    You literally just said you'd stop child benefit (money intended for its, y'know, food, clothes etc), so you clearly are punishing the child too.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    If you were charged a portion of the total amount like previously mentioned, you'd avoid funding a child for 18yrs. You'd also avoid scrounging off the taxpayer to support your kid. If someone were to find out that they were pregnant and were in no position to care for a child, a payment of say £50 is really nothing in hindsight. In this instance, it would save the taxpayer money, it would save the NHS money, and it would save the pregnant woman's money.
    You could say the same about charging for any NHS treatment. Or anything at all.

    Back in the real world: The mother loses out because you're charging her for a previously free service. Some mothers lose out massively as they can't afford even £50. The NHS loses out as it now has to introduce a bureacracy for taking and auditing payments. And the benefits are... nothing.

    Well, repeat abortions heavily suggest that they're used in replace of contraceptives.
    No one uses painful, bloody abortions that require repeat hospital visits +/- surgery in place of a morning after pill. Not unless you're unworldly stupid, in which case paying a small amount of money is no disincentive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    You could say the same about charging for any NHS treatment. Or anything at all.

    Back in the real world: The mother loses out because you're charging her for a previously free service. Some mothers lose out massively as they can't afford even £50. The NHS loses out as it now has to introduce a bureacracy for taking and auditing payments. And the benefits are... nothing.
    We are charged for prescriptions/dental work.
    Like I said, their income would be assessed. If they're deemed to be able to pay then they should. The NHS is not losing out. They currently spend £1m a week on repeat abortions. If people were to pay £50, the costs would be cut down substantially. That is beneficial.


    No one uses painful, bloody abortions that require repeat hospital visits +/- surgery in place of a morning after pill. Not unless you're unworldly stupid, in which case paying a small amount of money is no disincentive.
    Either way, I'm really not sympathetic for women who have repeat abortions. How do you know it's not a disincentive when we've never introduced a system like this?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    We are charged for prescriptions/dental work.
    Like I said, their income would be assessed. If they're deemed to be able to pay then they should. The NHS is not losing out. They currently spend £1m a week on repeat abortions. If people were to pay £50, the costs would be cut down substantially. That is beneficial.
    It would be cut down by less than 10%. By targeting our most vulnerable women in society. At a time when they've had to make a difficult decision anyway and are about to undergo a painful, not risk-free procedure.

    Talk about kicking people when they're down.

    Either way, I'm really not sympathetic for women who have repeat abortions. How do you know it's not a disincentive when we've never introduced a system like this?
    Because I've seen people go through abortions. Its thoroughly unpleasant.

    Its similar to saying why don't we make people pay for their own leg amputations to encourage people to get checked for diabetes.
    Prevention is infinitely better, not targeting people when they're down.

    You clearly have a moral problem with abortions. Which is another question - if you want to ban them then support that rather than supporting a measure which only targets poor people.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    We are charged for prescriptions/dental work.
    Like I said, their income would be assessed. If they're deemed to be able to pay then they should. The NHS is not losing out. They currently spend £1m a week on repeat abortions. If people were to pay £50, the costs would be cut down substantially. That is beneficial.
    It would be cut down by less than 10%. By targeting our most vulnerable women in society. At a time when they've had to make a difficult decision anyway and are about to undergo a painful, not risk-free procedure.

    Talk about kicking people when they're down.

    Either way, I'm really not sympathetic for women who have repeat abortions. How do you know it's not a disincentive when we've never introduced a system like this?
    Because I've seen people go through abortions. Its thoroughly unpleasant.

    Its similar to saying why don't we make people pay for their own leg amputations to encourage people to get checked for diabetes.
    Prevention is infinitely better, not targeting people when they're down.

    You clearly have a moral problem with abortions. Which is another question - if you want to ban them then support that rather than supporting a measure which only targets poor people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    It would be cut down by less than 10%. By targeting our most vulnerable women in society. At a time when they've had to make a difficult decision anyway and are about to undergo a painful, not risk-free procedure.

    Talk about kicking people when they're down.
    Vulnerable? Don't make me laugh. Some women who have had a number of abortions aren't the least bit bothered. They're happy to rid themselves of a burden,which is fair but vulnerable is far from the word I would use to describe them.
    I've undergone a painful not risk free procedure and guess what? I had to pay for it.



    Because I've seen people go through abortions. Its thoroughly unpleasant
    As have I. Its not any less pleasant because it's free.

    Its similar to saying why don't we make people pay for their own leg amputations to encourage people to get checked for diabetes.
    Prevention is infinitely better, not targeting people when they're down.
    Not really, its not always possible to prevent diabetes. If they refuse to have their leg amputated, they risk serious infection that could kill them.
    You clearly have a moral problem with abortions. Which is another question - if you want to ban them then support that rather than supporting a measure which only targets poor people.
    I don't want to ban abortion, I'm actually very much pro choice. I just think that women who have repeat abortions are taking the mick as they expect the taxpayer to fund it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    If defending the ethnic and cultural makeup of my country is illiberal then so be it. On the other hand if you actually believe that non-chritians/atheists breeding at a faster rates than the natives will produce a more liberal country then you need to take a look at the world.
    So Christians are more Liberal than atheists? Oh you do make me laugh. Furthermore are atheists not natives then?

    I thought you were an atheist anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So Christians are more Liberal than atheists? Oh you do make me laugh. Furthermore are atheists not natives then?

    I thought you were an atheist anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I used the / key. British christians are far more liberal than Muslims and African christians.

    I am.
 
 
 
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
What is your favourite day of the week
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.