The classic playground song “first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage” sounds more like a fantasy than an authentic representation of today’s society. The rates of babies born to unwed mothers have been increasing rapidly for decades, and many times this leads to unwanted financial, emotional, and social struggles for both the parent and child. Many people speculate about the causes of this growing controversial topic. Evidence shows that an increased number of couples are living together before the prospect of marriage, causing a decline in the family unit. The current welfare system enables poverty and encourages the breakdown of the family unit. And birth control is not readily accessible, making unplanned
…show more content…
When hard economic times hit, contraceptives can be difficult to pay for when paying bills and groceries also need to be taken care of. According to the Obama administration, if birth control was more accessible it would cause a reduction in unplanned pregnancies and abortions (1). Some women have serious health conditions, and pregnancy could endanger their health. Birth control offers the women the choice to become pregnant when she is healthy enough to carry a baby. If birth control was more accessible, women would have a greater chance of delaying pregnancy until after educational goals are completed and they become financially stable. When financial, education, and marriage goals are met, couples can have the option of creating the family unit that is disappearing rapidly. Birth control would allow fewer unintended pregnancies, which would save the taxpayer’s money and benefit society as a …show more content…
Some may argue that providing birth control coverage would not reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions (1). It could also encourage sexual permissiveness, and cost the taxpayers even more money. Because pregnancy is not a disease, birth control should not be included in preventative health care. (1). While it cannot be argued that preventing pregnancy is not the same as preventing a serious health disease, preventing unplanned pregnancy would save more money than it would cost. Providing birth control as part of a healthcare plan or at a lower price to consumers would benefit not only the woman, but the entire
When hard economic times hit, contraceptives can be difficult to pay for when paying bills and groceries also need to be taken care of. According to the Obama administration, if birth control was more accessible it would cause a reduction in unplanned pregnancies and abortions (1). Some women have serious health conditions, and pregnancy could endanger their health. Birth control offers the women the choice to become pregnant when she is healthy enough to carry a baby. If birth control was more accessible, women would have a greater chance of delaying pregnancy until after educational goals are completed and they become financially stable. When financial, education, and marriage goals are met, couples can have the option of creating the family unit that is disappearing rapidly. Birth control would allow fewer unintended pregnancies, which would save the taxpayer’s money and benefit society as a …show more content…
Some may argue that providing birth control coverage would not reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions (1). It could also encourage sexual permissiveness, and cost the taxpayers even more money. Because pregnancy is not a disease, birth control should not be included in preventative health care. (1). While it cannot be argued that preventing pregnancy is not the same as preventing a serious health disease, preventing unplanned pregnancy would save more money than it would cost. Providing birth control as part of a healthcare plan or at a lower price to consumers would benefit not only the woman, but the entire