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

Should abortions be free?

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes it should be free because otherwise the only people who could pay for the abortion would be people in the better financial situation. This means that women who can't afford the child also can't afford the abortion meaning kids in care, kids growing up in poverty etc. Women who suffer from domestic abuse may not be willing to disclose that this is their reason for an abortion, do you think they could easily ask their abuser for money to pay for the abortion? The cost to social services of this idea would be high, I don't think it would ever work
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I used the / key. British christians are far more liberal than Muslims and African christians.

    I am.
    What's wrong with atheists breeding then? Are you really suggesting Christians are more Liberal than atheists?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    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.

    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
    What's the point in charging £50? An abortion can cost up to £700. The costs of setting up a system to audit and manage payments would probably cancel out any gains.

    And what if some people still can't afford the £50? The taxpayer would have to pay for hospital costs, for child benefits, for a school place, for their access to the NHS, for their injections etc.

    How would this save us any money in the long term?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What's the point in charging £50? An abortion can cost up to £700. The costs of setting up a system to audit and manage payments would probably cancel out any gains.
    There were 190k repeat abortions in the year 2010. If each was charged at £50, that's £9.5m saved a year. That entire amount wouldn't be spent on setting up a system to audit payments..

    And what if some people still can't afford the £50? The taxpayer would have to pay for hospital costs, for child benefits, for a school place, for their access to the NHS, for their injections etc.
    Again, an income assessment would decide who can and cannot afford it. Those who can't would be partially/fully funded.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    There were 190k repeat abortions in the year 2010. If each was charged at £50, that's £9.5m saved a year. That entire amount wouldn't be spent on setting up a system to audit payments..


    Again, an income assessment would decide who can and cannot afford it. Those who can't would be partially/fully funded.
    Woo 9.5 million out of a trillion of spending


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    There were 190k repeat abortions in the year 2010. If each was charged at £50, that's £9.5m saved a year. That entire amount wouldn't be spent on setting up a system to audit payments..


    Again, an income assessment would decide who can and cannot afford it. Those who can't would be partially/fully funded.
    Then we would have gained nothing from it.
    If someone is put off from having the abortion because of the £50 fee it will end up costing the tax payer far more down the line with birthing costs, child care, school places etc.

    And you are now saying there should be funding available for those who cannot afford it, which just makes the entire thing seem pointless then.


    Teenage pregnancy rates are falling in the UK, our strategy of prevention is working and we should focus far more on that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Woo 9.5 million out of a trillion of spending


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    £9.5m out of £50m
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Then we would have gained nothing from it.
    If someone is put off from having the abortion because of the £50 fee it will end up costing the tax payer far more down the line with birthing costs, child care, school places etc.

    And you are now saying there should be funding available for those who cannot afford it, which just makes the entire thing seem pointless then.


    Teenage pregnancy rates are falling in the UK, our strategy of prevention is working and we should focus far more on that.
    I don't know why you're assuming that someone is forced to continue with pregnancy. £50 is really nothing compared to a lifetime of constant fees caring for a child, do you not understand that? If I were to fall pregnant and didn't want a kid, I wouldn't hesitate to pay that £50. Would save me thousands in the long run.

    It's not pointless because most working people will be able to afford a one off payment of £50.

    Teen pregnancy may be falling, repeat abortions are thriving
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I don't know why you're assuming that someone is forced to continue with pregnancy. £50 is really nothing compared to a lifetime of constant fees caring for a child, do you not understand that? If I were to fall pregnant and didn't want a kid, I wouldn't hesitate to pay that £50. Would save me thousands in the long run.

    It's not pointless because most working people will be able to afford a one off payment of £50.

    Teen pregnancy may be falling, repeat abortions are thriving
    Again, we gain very little from charging £50, and all it takes is a few people to be put off to outweigh the money we would gain.

    If ten people who are pregnant decide to pay £50, but one person is put off from that figure, then we would lose far more than we have gained.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    £9.5m out of £50m
    Government spending in talking about. It's something like 0.001% of spending.

    Also you won't save 9.5 anyway as previously pointed out because of the employees and systems needed to police who pays.

    This is without even considering the cost of the policy persuading someone to keep a child they wouldn't have done so otherwise.

    The idea is retarded
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Again, we gain very little from charging £50, and all it takes is a few people to be put off to outweigh the money we would gain.

    If ten people who are pregnant decide to pay £50, but one person is put off from that figure, then we would lose far more than we have gained.

    You're right. A few million is nothing. I don't see why anyone who really doesn't want a kid would be put off.

    The person who is put off will lose out the most. After all, who wants to be stuck with a baby they don't want for the rest of their life?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Government spending in talking about. It's something like 0.001% of spending.

    Also you won't save 9.5 anyway as previously pointed out because of the employees and systems needed to police who pays.

    This is without even considering the cost of the policy persuading someone to keep a child they wouldn't have done so otherwise.

    The idea is retarded
    This is pretty much what the previous person said and I responded, I'm not repeating myself again
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    You're right. A few million is nothing. I don't see why anyone who really doesn't want a kid would be put off.

    The person who is put off will lose out the most. After all, who wants to be stuck with a baby they don't want for the rest of their life?
    In the context of hundreds of millions, billions or even trillions which is spent on health, a few million really is nothing.

    Each abortion costs on average around £700. Charging £50, and then having to pay to set up systems and employees to deal with it would outweigh any savings.
    People who cannot afford it would be put off. There are people out there who don't have a spare £50 and it would end up costing the tax payer far, far more.

    All it takes is one person to be put off having an abortion by the £50 and that would outweigh the money brought in from charging hundreds of people £50.
    Online

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No. Hey, if you want a doctor inserting a surgical knife into your vayjayjay to rip apart your healthy unborn baby due to your reckless decisions, it should be coming out of your pocket. Some of us actually think the that "fetus" is a human being with human DNA and not an alien. Why should people be paying for other's careless decisions and/or desires?

    Use a condom next time, or use birth control or put the baby on adoption. It really isn't that hard to use protection. It is 1/2 the biological mom and 1/2 the biological father's problem. Who really wants to be playing taxes for a woman having unprotected sex with a man who she knows want be for her when she's knocked up?

    Remember, abortion =/= protection.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In the context of hundreds of millions, billions or even trillions which is spent on health, a few million really is nothing.

    Each abortion costs on average around £700. Charging £50, and then having to pay to set up systems and employees to deal with it would outweigh any savings.
    People who cannot afford it would be put off. There are people out there who don't have a spare £50 and it would end up costing the tax payer far, far more.

    All it takes is one person to be put off having an abortion by the £50 and that would outweigh the money brought in from charging hundreds of people £50.
    Ok
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I've posted about this before but it bears repeating - THE NHS IS THERE FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT!

    It is not there for those who deserve it, it is not there only for those who have lived wholesome lives and never made a mistake and never done anything to jeopardise their health. If it were, NONE of us would get free treatment!

    If you start punishing people for mistakes by charging them for treatment, you are bringing into question people who have cancer (did they smoke, did they sunbathe, did they eat unhealthy food?), people who have heart disease, people who have muscle and joint problems, people who have infections, I could go on and on and on.

    Basically whatever your opinion is on abortions, this argument is a very slippery slope and goes against the principles on which the NHS was founded.
    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
    the tax payer's not paying for anything here - not yet at least - if a person becomes impregnated and they are, knowingly, not financially able to support a child, and they are refusing to have an abortion, then clearly, they should be punished for gross neglience of that future child - the tax payer, therefore, isn't paying nearly as much - only for their prison sentence. and if they go to prison and the child is born anyway, they should be charged for that child's maintenance while that child is in more responsible hands. and if they can't pay, then the father will pay. and if he can't? tax payer.

    so as you can quite clearly see, this is a better system than the default, which is "throw money at the irresponsible child-bearer". there are more barriers to that child via both incentives and penalties. the tax payer thus becomes much less likely to have to pay for a child that they had nothing to do with. call me machiavellian, but it is evil to have a child, knowing full well that not only will that child be likely impoverished, but the possible maintenance of that child via the tax payer costs *everybody*.

    there are 2 options: everybody is unfairly charged for somebody else's immorality, or the person responsible is simply made to not be immoral. I'm actually a libertarian, and this is the only thing I can see that will disincentive people having babies that they simply cannot afford, nor care to raise well. either there is criminality for the person that's actually respoinsible for the wrong doing (the bearing of the child they can't afford) or there is massive expense for those that didn't do anything wrong (the tax payer). it is more moral *and* cheaper to have this arrangement than another one (i.e. the current system). if prison is currently more than child maintenance benefits (which I doubt), then prisons shouldn't be as high-costing as they are and prison spending should be cut.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    PS - has anyone considered that the cost to the tax payer of putting a child through education, and supporting that child on the NHS throughout their life, as well as any other money claimed from the state by that child - all of that is much more expensive than an abortion...? So to be honest, the argument about taxpayers having to fund abortions doesn't stand up very strong.

    The only way you can counter that argument is by saying 'the cost would be a deterrent' - well if the cost of raising a child isn't a financial deterrent then the cost of an abortion (considerably smaller) won't be a financial deterrent either.

    The financial argument doesn't make sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    the tax payer's not paying for anything here - not yet at least - if a person becomes impregnated and they are, knowingly, not financially able to support a child, and they are refusing to have an abortion, then clearly, they should be punished for gross neglience of that future child - the tax payer, therefore, isn't paying nearly as much - only for their prison sentence. and if they go to prison and the child is born anyway, they should be charged for that child's maintenance while that child is in more responsible hands. and if they can't pay, then the father will pay. and if he can't? tax payer.

    The average abortion costs just under £700. Are you telling me that bringing a court case, providing legal aid and imprisoning the mother can be done for under £700?

    And what if neither them or the father can pay for child maintenance? The tax payer pays, and it costs us more. And does this baby not get access to the NHS? Do they not get vaccinations or birthing treatment. Do they not get a school place? Again the tax payer pays.

    It ends up costing us far more than we would save.

    so as you can quite clearly see, this is a better system than the default, which is "throw money at the irresponsible child-bearer". there are more barriers to that child via both incentives and penalties. the tax payer thus becomes much less likely to have to pay for a child that they had nothing to do with. call me machiavellian, but it is evil to have a child, knowing full well that not only will that child be likely impoverished, but the possible maintenance of that child via the tax payer costs *everybody*.
    How is it a better system? It ends up costing the tax payer far more through birthing costs, legal aid, prison funding, school fees, vaccinations, child care etc etc.


    there are 2 options: everybody is unfairly charged for somebody else's immorality, or the person responsible is simply made to not be immoral. I'm actually a libertarian.
    Then it goes entirely against the point of the NHS. The NHS is there for those who need it. We are not America, we don't have a system where you only get treated if you are wealthy. We don't just let our poor die on the streets.

    It's one of the things I am most patriotic and proud to be British about. The fact that we treat all our citizens to free at the point of use healthcare.

    If we start going 'ah but he was playing football so doesn't deserve treatment' or 'he was looking at his phone when he fell so he shouldn't be treated' etc then we will end up with no one being treated. In almost any accident there will be something that the person affected could have done differently to avoid it. With your system, almost no one would be able to use the NHS.
 
 
 
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.