If I were a woman, there is no way I would entertain the idea of having kids without my name on the title or lease of the house.
That's a surefire way to homelessness, unless you are very (SV engineer or doctor) rich.
But usually such opinions are fairly controversial, which suggests a clash of deeper underlying values.
That has zero to do with whether it is safe to move into in-laws house when you are entering vulnerable period of pregnancy and being primary caregiver for small kids. Because both severely limit your economic options even in best conditions.
That is generally only true until kids are in the picture, then the famous "what is best for the child" over rules all
Family courts take stability of the child over all else, so if the child is used to living in the family home who ever the custodial parent is will get possession of the home even if that custodial parent was not the owner of the home before the marriage
A house that was sole property before the marriage, remains sole property after the marriage, even if the other spouse is added to the deed. The other spouse only takes a "equitable interest" to the extent that marital resources, or their own separate resources, are invested in the house. This is the case in community property (like CA) and non-CP states (most of the rest).
The primary issue is that in some states the presumption changes when the spouse is added to the deed, so that the house is presumed to be marital property in the event of divorce until the pre-owning spouse shows that it is not. (But in most states, there is no presumption and the other spouse must show that they have an equitable interest in the house, generally by showing that marital resources were spent to pay the mortgage or make improvements.)
There's lots of prosperous countries where renting is very common, is well-regulated, and not some great risk (Germany and Switzerland spring to mind).
I, too, live in a country where owning is the norm. That turns the rental market into (mostly) shabby flats for the very lowest income brackets, for students, for migrant workers, or for short-term renting. It doesn't have to be that way.
Renting is very popular in Germany because buying is out of reach for most due to how expensive it is, therefore those who aren't well off have no other choice but to rent, leading to old age poverty for those who don't own their own property by the time they retire.
That's why Italian pensioners are statistically better off than their German counterparts despite their country being poorer, because they own their own property at retirement, instead of paying market rent and having to search the city trash bins for empty bottles to make ends meet.
Most Germans with financial means or inheritance do own property since it's financially better than renting, especially when your old and living on a measly pension.
Not that I don't support rental regulations, I do, but the real estate market in Germany is broken and therefore is not what I consider a model to be followed by everyone.
In general, capital cities in Europe are extremely expensive, no matter whether we are talking about well-regulated Berlin or less-regulated Rome.
And the issue with Berlin isn't that renting is expensive, it's that you can't find anything decent at all. Properties disappear off websites within minutes due to over demand, and then, once you finally manage find something, you have to do a visit with 200 other people with a folder in hand with a lot of your private information, and pray to your lucky star that you'll be that one in 200 people to get it.
Back in the days, we used to have a once in a century virus/pandemic/plague that would "thin the heard", but now we got really good at creating effective vaccines and prioritizing distributing them at those old and vulnerable, to prevent nature from running its course, so we're back to square one.
So what do we do? Provide modern medicine only to able bodied adults and deprive the elderly once they reach their sell by date?
For what it's worth, it'd get the job done.
But that aside, for starters, we should have let covid-19 run its course. Vaccines, if any, should have been given to the people under 50 first. This would have helped balance things out a lot to begin with. Similarly, I think we should be more willing to turn to palliative care earlier in the case of declining health in the elderly.
Of course, I recognize that I'm basically just describing some flavor or utilitarianism and that it will never even be in the discussion of how things should be.
And we see that rent-vs-own is a thing as it is, so it fits (I've heard people say they will have kids once they buy their own place, etc).