> Poverty is a variable to properly taking care of a child, that does not mean that the parent means that being poor automatically makes one unfit to have a child, which is what you're conflating, if I understand correctly.

In fact, the other commenters were conflating these two things, which I wanted to point out. I agree that they should not be conflated.

> If one is poor but can provide the proper nutrition and housing to a child, then great, have them, but if not, then no, I don't believe it is controversial or offensive to say that it would be better for them to not have a child. Child abuse is a big problem for a reason.

The right decision for an individual couple to make is not the same as the right policies and practices for society to implement.

There are people who are unsuitable for having children, but that number is vanishingly small (or at least it should be). Everybody else just needs support, resources, and instruction.

It might be better for a couple that does not have support, resources or knowledge to forgo having children. Whenever that happens, though, it is a tragedy for humanity. The rest of us should find ways to support families that are otherwise lacking, so that having children is the best option for them.