I'm sorry your friend is going through this - abortion should be an active choice and shouldn't be based on financial merit.
It's interesting reading the amount of none critical thinking on this thread. I don't often post but issues such as social welfare and child health really do strike a chord.
Looking at each of the arguments that have cropped up is even more interesting and debatable.
Firstly, tax credits were meant to incentivise work - ensuring that low earners would not be overly disenfranchised by returning to work. Therefore an element of post feminism was involved i.e. that women could return and support themselves in the workplace. How they have worked is also a topic of contention: as popularity of welfare reforms came in which looked to aid those into employment became more widespread the 'oh shit' element then happened. They just weren't meant to be that popular. Conversely, wage growth meant that tax credits became more of a necessity for low income families; wages have not kept up with inflation nor living costs.
Ironically, it's not even an educational thing..the pre supposition that low income families have restricted educational standards is pretty piss poor of an idea really. Education is a post code lottery and also one that doesn't necessarily impose itself on one economic class. A family can spend thousands on a private education but end up with a mediocre attainment at the end of it. All the privilege in the world does not negate latent talent in the underdog.
That women have limited idea of contraception - universality of contraception does not exist and as expounded earlier is not a 100% foolproof. Couple into that religion, rape resulting pregnancy, multiple pregnancies and you have an unworkable solution to a minor aspect of welfare cutting.
Long term, pension wise - well that has been massively eroded. It will end up being a work until you drop system. However in a Douglas Adams sort of world we'll end up with accountants and middle management and sfa of anything else.
A population system needs people. We just do. After the first world war an entire generation of working age people were wiped out; the Spanish flu added further to the problem. The second world war imposed not just a startlingly high mortality on a global scale, it also added economically in the rebuilding of infrastructure. Population wise we are now looking at the next two to three generations of people who have a lower life expectancy than their parents - based in part on economic crises and also on nutritional standards deteriorating. Preventative medicine is now a luxury - fresh food is great and fine if you have the time because you're not working two jobs to support a failing family structure but processed ease of food is a lot more time savvy if unhealthy.
It does look like you who have commented with a lack of any social conscience really understand the wider problems which come with social class culling:
Less economic growth = less workers = lower life expectancy
Less innovation = less population = less latent talent pool = less self sufficiency in a post brexit/ nuclear society
Less support in later life = greater state dependence based on less extended families and more welfare need from single person family units
Yes, the abortion rate will probably rise, yanbu in your assumption. I personally feel that the sheer level of vitriol on this thread is akin almost to inciting hatred amongst existing class divisions. It's mind blowing that there is even a liberal party still in existence with the narrow mindset in evidence.
Perhaps, in actuality, we should be looking at the overspend on trident, hs2 and the massively over priced £74k benefit scroungers who sit in the Commons? Of course they're probably laughing over the fact that we are fighting amongst ourselves and not back against a system so disproportionately in favour of nepotism and hierarchy that advantage is something that happens to other people.
OP, I'm sorry that this thread is so hateful and not supportive of social justice.