so there should be no children in ethiopia (or other african nation of choice) except for those from the ritch dictators who are raping the country?
Great answer. Yes, it's okay to have babies that parents supposedly can't afford. Isn't it the poor who has the most children? I think God gives more children to the poor, because the rich people who could most "afford" them, make the most pathetic excuses to not have more children.
What's wrong is government welfare, which ought to be considered an oxymoron, because government has nothing to give that it didn't take from the fruits of other people's labor. Welfare should be private individuals and groups, and VOLUNTARY, so as to hold it accountable for wise use of the funds.
The father should work to support their children, but I see no specific clearly measurable definition of this. If there are no jobs to be found, a family still has their God-given right to Life and to procreate children. There's no obligation of married people to practice any form of contrary-to-nature "family planning."
It doesn't make sense to make a prerequisite that babies be "affordable" before they are conceived, because look how the evil politicians twist things. What's to keep them from saying you must make at least $250,000 a year, before being allowed to conceive a baby, then get taxed through the nose for making "too much" money?
When you are poor, children don't cost much, as poor people make more of what they use, and buy less. Somehow I see "affordability" quotas soon morphing into "family size" quotas, according to the perceived needs of the socialistic machine awful state. Let's not go down that path, and leave it to God or the billions of breeder parents to decide how to enjoy their liberty.
BTW, I advocate large families worldwide, so that far more people may experience life, so understandably, I have to be a bit "flexible" on the "affordability" measure. Not that there aren't other good reasons to reason against an "affordability" measure. Having a job, any job, minimum wage, almost anything ought to count towards babies being possibly affordable to the frugal parents who love children.
Or poor people could just stop having sex? Ah, didn't think so.
They say of poor people, that children are their only wealth. Sometimes it is also noted, that having sex is about the only recreation they can afford? If a family can't afford electricity for their little hut, what else is there to do at night in the dark to stay warm, than to make lots of babies? I wouldn't expect poor people to afford the nasty unnatural anti-life "birth control." And they say that people who use the "natural" method of rhythm, perhaps because it is free, are usually called PARENTS, joking that it doesn't really work very well. So why not use the most natural and free method, the NO METHOD method. It's the most pro-life and consistent with God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
Lack of affordability is an economic condition quite often caused by the bad policies of corrupt politicians. What wouldn't be affordable, if people were allowed to keep the fruits of their labors, and we could get the politicians out of our pockets and out of our business? No need to blame the innocent babies for such things.