Yes it is when funds go to people who are given free alternative ways to prevent the cost in the first place (even morning after pill), yet can't go to people who are childless through no fault of theirs.
Of course, let's not even talk about how it is taking funds away people with horrible illnesses.
Tired of people who use a free system just because it's available when they can prevent it, and yes, unfortunately, although 8 is an extreme number, women who have 4 or 5 abortions in their life time are not that rare.
No, it still isn't an insult to people who can't have kids. It's got nothing to do with them.
You seem to be working on the assumption that if the funding weren't available for abortions, it would automatically go towards IVF instead. This isn't the case.
If she were to have carried even a couple of these pregnancies to term, it would've been eaten up by the costs of antenatal, birth and postnatal care even if we assume that a combination of pregnancy and use of contraception would have prevented the others. Which we shouldn't because we don't know.
Alternatively, she might still have decided to have the abortions anyway but done them illegally and suffered the side effects that often accompany illegal and botched abortions. With the NHS picking up the costs for that too.
You can disapprove all you like of multiple abortions, but the reality is that there are plenty of ways that not providing them could make things even more expensive for the NHS.