If you don't have enough time to raise your children properly, that's 100% on you. Having children is a choice, and the costs of that choice should not be imposed on society at large.
Why not? Why do you accept that as truth? What's the alternative? There's no point in arguing what she should have done because we can't change the past, she's here with three kids, so what do we do now? Just let them rot or help them out? I mean I suppose we could just murder all poor people and be done with it, but that's not really a society I want to be a part of.
When you see someone trip and fall, do you get down and tell them they should have watched where they were walking then kick them in the ribs before you walk off?
There is, so we can prevent the next person from making the same mistake.
You can't save a sinking ship with a bucket alone. You have to plug the leak.
So you’re opposed to parents who take whatever work they can get in order to support their families. By your previous statement, you’re probably also against welfare, as that also externalises the costs. It sounds like you’re against the idea that people should be allowed to procreate unless they’re rich?
That's of course not to say that there aren't genuinely awful people and parents out there, but often they're not spending every waking hour working to support their kids, with little to nothing remaining after bills are paid.
Are you saying that's the most likely case here?
Better to figure out how we can support these people so that their lives aren't filled with such abject suffering than to say "they (retroactively) shouldn't have kids."
Yes, by supplying them with adequate family planning education and free access to contraceptives so they understand the risk and burden of parenthood before inflicting it upon themselves.
Let's also help those that have been left behind though. We have the ability to help everyone.