Comparing the value of a child to no child

Here is another example of government policy, based on what a pro-abortion, government funded charity wants them to do. 

"According to an Options for Sexual Health study (2010), every $1 spent on access to contraception can save as much as $90 in government spending."

The government actually tells us that they are doing this because a pro-abortion lobby group thinks it's a good idea. 

"A dollar on contraceptive support for a woman can save as much as ninety dollars in public expenditure on social supports.  A profile of contraceptive use in BC’s Opt clinics indicates that the average woman will use $104.40 in contraceptive products annually, for a total of less than $4000 over a 30 year span.  By contrast, the cost of subsidies to one young parent requiring social supports to raise a child to age 18 has been reported by the Canadian Council for Social Development and Manitoba Agriculture at $167,000, or over $9000 a year (Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, 2004)." 

So why are they doing this? Because it is way cheaper to pay for contraceptives than it is to support a child. Except that this is a lie. A child grows up, contributes to society in countless ways, through work, through giving time to their communities and places of worship, creating jobs, giving to charities, paying taxes, etc. It is literally priceless.

Comparing the social support costs for children, against the cost of contraceptives is a ridiculous non-sensical comparison. Mind you, we shouldn't be surprised. Justin Trudeau already listens to Joyce Arthur and bases government policies on her pro-abortion advocacy all the time.