A tax question for pro-life believers

[JustW0nderingWh0Pays]

If there were a vote to allow/not allow abortion, and in order to vote not allowed, you had to commit to paying an extra 5% tax in order to fund free childcare as well as better maternity pay and an increase/restoration of child nenefit, would you still vote Not to allow ???

Obviously the cost /cost of childcare is only one of many reasons not to want to go ahead with an unplanned pregnancy. I do realise this.

Aibu - i hold pro life views and i would not be prepared to pay any more tax

Not being unreasonable - i am pro life but understand that bringing children in to the world is hugely expensive and women shouldn't be left to bear the cost/lose freedom to earn.

Disclaimer, obviously i am pro choice so to me being pro life is unreasonable but hopefully this question makes sense

I’m not the demographic your AIBU is aimed at because I’m firmly pro-choice, but it’s a fair question. I suspect the answer will be no (because it’s not really about protecting babies but about controlling women).

Without wanting to derail the thread please can we stop using the term ‘pro-life’? It’s manipulative and nasty because it implies that the opposite is ‘pro-death’ or ‘anti-life’. Just use the term ‘anti-abortion’ which is clear and factual.

I would vote for the free childcare. In the USA there are already many organizations (mainly Christian) providing nappies, clothing, Amazon Gift lists etc to pregnant women.
I would support that being provided to.
motherhood is undervalued as it is anyway.

I find this debate generally pretty awful and I don’t think it as black and white as both sides make out.

But the part of me that is pro-life would very much want to play extra tax! One of my biggest issues with pro life is what would happen to all those women and babies 🥲 plus I’m a big believer in tax anyway. I’ve seen a lot of poverty mess through work (I had a nice childhood) and wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

Child abuse and poverty is incredibly upsetting to me so tbh I wish we paid more towards it anyway.

When will all these whataboutery threads end?

I think you’re misunderstanding the majority of people with anti abortion views (to the point of wanting it banned) if you think a significant number would be bothered about a bit more tax.

I also don’t think many women would be persuaded not to have an abortion of childcare was a bit cheaper.

Whatsboutery?
The assumption that women lose their freedom, their earning potential or pay huge unaffordable childcare is not whataboutery.

I’m firmly pro choice

but I think a lot of people who are anti-abortion would be willing to pay the additional tax because they firmly believe the foetus’s life is more important than the woman’s and nothing will change that

also I think there would still be many abortions even if there was free childcare

Do you mean everyone would have to pay the extra, or just the pro-lifers?

It feels to me a bit like asking people to vote for whether slavery should be banned or not, but those who vote in favour of banning have to pay 50% more for their goods, to compensate for the extra cost of labour.

Pro lifers aren't wanting to ban it because they want to inconvenience people, but because they believe it is murder. The result of banning abortion may mean society needs to pay extra tax for childcarer, just as how banning slavery meant everyone had to pay more for goods. But that cost should fall on everyone, not just those who can see it's immoral.

Not everyone believed slavery was wrong when it was banned, doesn't mean it should have been left to everyone's conscience whether they have a slave or not.

Yes, having a child is difficult and expensive. I still don't like the idea of killing them in the womb (or outside of it), even if they do reduce a woman's capitalist earning potential...

Sorry I don’t think I articulated well what I meant.

There seems to be hypothetical scenario after hypothetical scenario posts aimed at getting a “gotcha” on people with religious anti abortion views.

It seems like a massive distraction from the actual issue at hand. Whether someone who is anti abortion is happy to pay for a women forced to give birth’s childcare is irrelevant because that women should NEVER be forced to give birth. (Most) women don’t seem to be choosing abortions because of childcare costs.

And yes, I'd pay extra tax (although I'd like to see less of my current tax pissed up the wall first....looking at that subsidised Westminster bar and all those lucrative Stonewall contracts...)

I agreevwith you. I was trying to be respectful to a group that doesn't respect women.

I will give up now. To have the absolutely crucial question 'who pays' (,The woman, one way or another) dismissed as whataboutery makes me see im pushing water uphill.

American women are quipping when can they start claiming their embryos as dependents (additional tax exempt allowance) on their tax returns. Could they use estimated date of conception in lieu of birthdate, and when can the register the embryo for a social security number.

Absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

Why not just stop free childcare and child benefit?

To have the absolutely crucial question 'who pays' (,The woman, one way or another) dismissed as whataboutery makes me see im pushing water uphill

This is where I think you’re wrong. Who pays is not the crucial question. It’s who decides. Women should be able to decide to end a pregnancy and whether someone else is prepared to pay for a baby they don’t want to carry is irrelevant at best and at worst, accepting that it’s a legitimate source of debate.

What happens if all the anti abortion posters say they’re happy to pay more tax to save babies (which they probably will)? Does that mean that we can go ahead and ban abortion because childcare costs are sorted? This is why I think this sort of thread does no favours to the pro choice argument.

I’m pro life in that I see it as sad but I wouldn’t want to ban abortion. I’d want to improve access to contraception, increase every kind of family support from paid leave to housing to childcare to disability support so that the number of women who choose abortion is less and less without controlling anyone. Just though improved support.

…and I vote Labour (who will tax me more) because I want the party that most likely will do more of the above.

At the moment I’m not sure women always have a truly free choice because the economic penalty is so very high. So I’m pro choice (within the limits we have in the UK) but also pro life.

I’m pro-choice and think it should actually be a choice. No one should have to have a child they don’t want, but equally no one should have to abort a wanted child for financial reasons.

Why would you stop those things? That's not going to stop women getting pregnant. As someone who needs both of those things I find that comment extremely heartless. Haven't you noticed what's going on around you?

I totally agree. The main argument should be ‘women should be allowed to choose what happens to their body’, not a series of ‘how hypocritical are anti-abortionists’.

I thought I was pro choice, as I think we should have abortion available as we do in the UK. Then I came across pro choice people who seem to believe the mother's of unwanted children and the world itself, would be better off if those children had been terminated in the womb. They do not believe the foetus is a life. So, maybe I am a bit pro life too. I don't want to ban abortion, but I would like all those benefits for mothers you mention, and would happily pay more tax.

OP was asking if we'd raise the taxes to fund these, simply pointing out you could simply do away with them if the tax cost was too high.

So this is a tax to remove women's right to bodily autonomy? Oh I'm sure there are many out there who would find a 5% tax increase cheap for that.

I know that's not your point, but that's exactly what the reality would be I'm afraid.

I have to agree with you ,women choose to terminate pregnancies for many different reasons it's not always financial
I watched a really interesting documentary on sky last weeks about s group of women in the 60,s and 70,s who helped other women access safe illegal abortions ,they called themselves the "Janes" although they did a remarkable thing ,it's so sad that society in America is going backwards, and whilst their practices were safe many were not

No, it's not handing over autonomy in exchange for chilcare, i was clearly and only asking if pro lifers would "put their money where there mouth was", in a vote. Ie, pay more tax to acknowle the costs of what they consider ideal..
There was a vote in ireland in 2018. So it's not a ridiculous concept.

What are you hoping to get out of this thread? I’m genuinely asking.

Do you expect many of the anti abortioners to say they don’t want their taxes put up to this reason? What then?