In regards to abortion no collective interest is being served and women do not need tax payer provided abortions to have autonomy over their bodies.
Fairly good point though with wars the money is being spent in our (alleged) collective interests…
Austin Glass
31

Well, I would possibly argue that it is in the collective interest if a woman is unable/unwilling to care for a child and cannot afford an abortion to pay for her to have one rather than pay for the consequences of children being raised in families who didn’t want them, neglected them, or even worse, abused them. The cost of raising a child in state care is also pretty high. So in terms of collective benefit, I do believe that there is one. Privacy isn’t an issue here in the U.K. because, well, we don’t have people picketing clinics, largely because procedures are performed in ordinary hospitals, so a protester wouldn’t know where to even find abortions here. You do make a good point about the balance between choice and responsibilities, though, and it’s a valid one. I just don’t believe poor women should be in effect shut out of making choices because they’re poor.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.