Doesn't not having sex do that a little better tho? Like i totally get the point, but also, having sex gives chance of baby right? So, don't do it unless you ready? Maybe I'm wrong.
No, you're not "maybe wrong". You're absolutely and completely wrong seen as abstinence only programs have been shown over and over again to be ineffective. It's a sad attempt at policing people's desire for sex
Sex is a basic human need. Having a child isn't. You need to know you are compatible with your partner sexually or it will lead to tons of strife in a relationship. So not having sex unless you are asexual or a version of it isn't an option.
Humans also do not die when they are shackled and locked in a dark room for years or decades, as long as you feed them. How is you argument sounding now?
People fuck for various reasons. Taking away people's access to contraception doesn't stop that, it merely makes it more likely they'll have kids.
Abstinence only programs have shown themselves again and again to just produce teen pregnancies and STDs. Contraception, generally, is the best way to keep yourself from producing a child and the people who are against it tend to be the type of people who want the state to get into your bedroom.
Logically, yes. But humans aren't purely logical. They're gonna have sex without access to birth control, even if they don't want a kid. Not all of them, but a lot of them. So why not just let them have both control?
It doesn't scale. The people that can and want to "wait until they're ready" probably are doing that already. Meanwhile, the large, unwashed majority does whatever they feel like, and why would they want that to change?
It takes away personal liberty and punishes people who "cannot control themselves," giving way to social authoritarianism. To me, that's the exact opposite of what any elected government should do: to make people's lives better.