There's little financial difference between having children and buying Lambourghinis. The cultural difference is that only one of these is blameworthy if you get into financial trouble later. Perhaps both of them should be.
You blame people who fail to control their unhealthy eating decisions; why don't you blame people who fail to control their unhealthy procreating decisions?
That's not what I said.
I do blame people who make unhealthy parenting choices, i.e., who have kids before they're financially capable of supporting kids. I take no issue with that argument.
Rather, I took issue with the language in your original post, which seemed to imply that having kids at all is considered a high-end luxury. IMO, something's seriously wrong with any society in which that's categorically true.
Having kids at all is not a basic human need on the level of food, water, and shelter. It is a biological urge, similar to the urge for french fries.
Now, I don't personally think that eating a reasonable serving of french fries while getting adequate exercise is blameworthy; nor do I think that buying a Lambourghini while earning $10M/year is blameworthy; nor do I think that having children you can afford and care for is blameworthy.
I do think that it's silly for popular culture to have sympathy and often admiration for unprepared parents, but scorn and derision for indebted luxury car owners.
FWIW, I am childless and drive a VW.
Effectively you are telling the majority of people on this planet they don't deserve the right to have children.
This kind of "I'm going to make babies and you can't stop me!" attitude is what created the Iron Law of Wages.
Looks like, even here, that's something you just can't say http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
All of these things cost money, none of them are charitable, but it's somehow less ok to get in financial trouble over them, the further you move toward the end of that list. Why?