Originally Posted by
orissa
Alright, lets assume women DO want to have sex. It's perfectly natural after all, it's part of our instinctual drive.
What would you rather have, welfare pay for unwanted babies (a few hundred thousand a year) or welfare to pay for contraceptives (a few thousand, if that, a year.)?
Of course, the cheapest way is to not have sex at all, but humans are humans and it's been proven to be more economically sound to plan for the worst than to hope for the best. Right now, we do the former, pay for welfare babies. But imagine if more poor women had better access to birth control. Now we don't have to pay for as many wanted babies. Contraceptives are cheaper. Contraceptives are fiscally conservative.
Yes, you are right, women should not have sex (and neither should men) if they are not financially secure or careful to not become pregnant (or to impregnate in the case of men). But we do not live in a perfect world, we should plan for such contingencies. It is better for society, for everyone involved, to avoid unwanted pregnancies and contraceptives are one of those steps.