The whole "paying for abortion" argument is obviously a very sensitive issue for a lot of people, but that doesn't make what they're saying true. Whether or not you agree with abortion is irrelevant, as is how many pregnancies you yourself have had. The opinions that matter here are how people feel about having to pay for you own abortion.
Personally, I think you should have to pay for your own abortion if you choose to have one. Like Linh already said, there are MANY alternatives, including adoption, passing care of the child onto a family member, and more. Yes, most of these options, when tallying up the cost until the child turns into a self-providing adult, will total more than the cost of the abortion, but that is life, in more than one sense - that's life - ie c'est la vie - and that is actually what life is all about, expense.
I feel like I'm copying everything Linh said, but what the fuck. If you choose to have sex, you choose to run the risk of getting pregnant. No matter how many precautions you take, you can never be certain of avoiding pregnancy unless you avoid sex altogether - and no, this isn't unreasonable. Sex is hobby, albeit an extremely enjoyable one I'm pretty fond of myself. It is NOT a need, as so many people, including professionals, like to make out it is. If you avoid having sex, you cannot get, or get someone else, pregnant. You make the choice to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant, and the responsibility of paying for either aborting the pregnancy or raising the child is "YOURS ALONE".
The argument that these unwanted children will end up costing society money in the future, to me, isn't an argument against paying for your own abortion, it's an argument for changing the welfare system that runs amok in the US, UK, and many more countries. The solution to stopping people leeching from the Goverment (or taxpayer's pockets, to cut the bullshit) isn't to prevent certain things from happening (drug addiction, smoking, unwanted pregnancies etc.), it's to massively revamp all welfare. I'm of the opinion that if people knew there would be no government hand-outs should they leave school early, take drugs, participate in criminal activity (thus reducing their employability etc.), the notion of bucking up their ideas and sorting their lives out would be far more attractive.
In my country, you can earn more sitting on benefits than many people who work full-time. The people who get a torrid time in the media, and from normal people, are these people who sit on benefits and do nothing all day but sponge from taxpayers, but I ask you something - can you blame them? If you had a family to provide for, and you were offered one of the following 2 options, which would YOU pick?
1) Sit in your house all day, having your rent paid for you, given an obscene amount of money every month to buy food, clothes, cigarettes and alcohol in addition to TV's and various forms of entertainment, and being able to provide everything your family needs without ever leaving your house.
2) Struggling to keep/find a steady job to provide an income for your family (or even just yourself), trying to keep up rent/mortgage payments while being taxed up the ass to pay for anyone who picked option 1, and dealing with any problems like stress that come with working your ass off for god-knows how many hours a week.
The correct option, hard as it is, is 2. However, when your main concern is your family, who you have been able to support until the current reccession, you do whatever it takes to provide for them. If I weren't able to provide for my family through my job, and I was offfered a job without enough pay to provide for my dependants, I'd certainly pick number 1.
People on welfare aren't the ones to blame here, the government who allows these people to sit and have everything handed to them while actively DISCOURAGING people from working are the ones to blame. Take away welfare, and you'll find these people out begging for the jobs they wouldn't touch before.
