I'm always fascinated by these threads and how polar the views expressed often are. I think both SAH and WOH are equally valid options but that one is inherently more risky.
If you're a SAH and you don't have independent wealth, it is financially risky. But that's a fault with society, not the parent choosing to SAH. Children are born and they need looking after. Someone has to do it and the job of raising the next generation is very important indeed! It seems to me to be absolutely crazy that when their own parent wants to do that, it (often) comes at the expense of long-term financial security. I think society could do a LOT more to recognise the valuable role of SAHPs and offer them more protection.
My DSis is a SAHM. One of her DC has complex disabilities but is now an adult. For their family my sister's choice to be a SAHM was undoubtedly the right choice and has benefited all of them. It's worked because my BiL is a fundamentally decent man who recognises the value of his wife's role and has ensured her financial protection. Sadly, not all men are like him and many women aren't taught how to spot the signs until it's too late. SAH success is too reliant on the right partner and an element of luck. However, when SAH works, it often works really well.
And I say that as someone who went back to full-time work at 6 weeks with no regrets. My DC are grown now (and well-balanced, happy and we have a great relationship 😉). I'd have absolutely hated being a SAHM and my children are far happier and well-adjusted because I didn't subject us to that!