I wrote a short article not too long ago asking the question, "Would you rather see illegal immigrants have anchor babies or have abortions"? Now I am asking a similar question about health care. Many of the same people who rail against the idea of taxpayers having to "foot the bill" for universal health are also the same people who rail against a woman's right to have an abortion. If you are one of these people who hate your taxes going to pay for other people's healthcare, but you also hate abortions, you have a dilemma. So which would you prefer? That women who are pregnant but don't want to keep the baby give the baby over to an adoption agency or foster home, forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for 18 years should that child never find a family, or would you rather see these women choose to have abortions, so that they aren't a drain on society and don't cost taxpayers anything? According to this article the United States spends roughly $22 billion per year caring for unwanted children. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/50411/fcaa_foster_care_alumni_of_america.html?cat=48.
Note that there is no third option...you cannot say you prefer the women not become pregnant at all. We are talking about women who are already pregnant and are facing a choice.