I doubt you could draw any direct correlation between more government benefits and a reduction in abortions.
Either way the essential issue is just what is abortion? Things like the term “pro-choice” are semantics, when discussing abortion, especially elective abortions due to no risk of the mothers health i.e. they just don’t want the kid (which apparently make up at least 90% of abortions in the US) we are talking straight up MURDER.
I understand the terror that may be gripping an young unprepared mother to be who has no means whatsoever to support her upcoming child but does that give her license to kill it? Think of it this way – does a mother of a 1 year old with no means of supporting that child have justification to kill it? The difference between the 1 year old and the fetus is a slight age difference and the fact she hasn’t gotten to know the child yet. That’s why abortion groups are so adamantly against legislation mandating mothers need to see an ultrasound before having an abortion. It forces them to realize the thing in their womb they are having a doctor rip to shreds limb from limb is not just a lump of tissue but an actual living human being.
So when you phrase the question as should we have more social welfare spending because otherwise people might be tempted to murder their children you see the conversation in a slightly different light.