No benefit preventing the conception of a child that has a high probability of a chromosomal disorder?

I would rather pay for it in the front, than in the rear. Preventing unwanted pregnancy, especially among the financially challenged, provides a social service that is so significant the argument against contraception becomes ridiculous and completely negated.

Is it better have lots of unwanted children and chromosomal damaged children that the state has to take care of, and yet is incapable of doing humanely, or to provide birth control?

Again, these same insurance policies provide for little blue pills for men to get it up, they provide for pregnancy care and child birth and they provide for the health insurance of the child. It is extremely more cost effective and far more socially responsible to provide effective contraception - whether it is the pill, vasectomy, condoms and education.


The whole argument based on "I did it myself, so I don't see why they can't" is equivalent it saying "I never went to college or got a high school degree, and I am fine. Why should my kid have to finish high school?" It is a self-centred argument that neglects the long term cost of failure to address the issue and the total value to our society.