We’ve been subsidizing single-mother families for 40 years. What has it gotten us? More of them than ever. I’ve read that in Regency England, as much as 65% of the women never married. (And if they were gentlewomen or ladies, that meant they lived and died as virgins.) Why? Not enough money to marry and raise children. Now if they could manage not to beget children in a time where there was NO birth control and NO safe abortions... why can’t women do it now??
They didn't manage not to beget children. A number of those single women tossed their newborn into the river or gave them away because a single woman with a child couldn't get work.
And there were both birth control and abortions. They were not advertised but every girl knew who to go to if she "got into trouble". Paying for it was another story.
And there were a lot of illegitimate children then as well. 75% of the births in St Giles were out of wedlock.
But your point of you get more of what you subsidize is taken.