If one can't afford children, one should not have children.

The ability to "afford children" can be defined as the ability to shelter, clothe, feed, and educate children. I have chosen to use the pronoun "one" in the predicate because it is a decision that should be considered by each of the prospective participating parents.

This simple moral imperative seems extremely reasonable and rational, yet it has the potential of causing considerable angst. I am presenting it primarily in opposition of the idea that one should "go forth and multiply and the Lord will provide". This is the commonly promoted moral imperative. However, apparently, the Lord doesn't always provide. It would have been advantageous if this moral imperative were the eleventh commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see this statement then, or now.

The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, poverty, crime, and human suffering could be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every religious and secular media till it reached the mind of every human on earth and became "common sense".

Some people will claim that the goal of this predicate is impossible to achieve due to the question of biological imperatives and practicalities. These doubters would suppose somebody who can barely feed themselves will never have the discipline, or desire, to acquire and use condoms or abstain. No food, no sex, and no children would be too much to expect. This is only an assertion. The effect of education can not be undersold.

Some people will think this moral imperative is somehow discriminatory toward the poor. The mistake in logic used in regard to "poor people" is that they represent a static, permanent group. However, even though those who can't afford children are usually poor; poor people can often afford to feed, clothe, educate, and shelter their children.

Some people worry that this moral imperative is the "slippery slope" toward forced sterilization of the poor? Vasectomies and tubal legations should be available for everyone, poor or otherwise. There have been condoms and abortions freely available to some populations. There is evidence that many women would take advantage of tubal legations if they were freely offered on a voluntary basis. Women, much more than men, have a direct emotional reaction to watching their children starve. Men are often absent and self-absorbed.

The principle does not preclude efforts to effect socio-economic change toward a more equal and prosperous society where everyone can afford children. Some affluent countries have achieved this. Naturally when one can afford children it no longer applies.

It should be noted that there are a variety of conditions under which people who can't afford children exist. One end of the continuum takes place in some areas near the equator where children are born into horrid squalor with no possibility of relief other than charity for a few. The other end of the continuum is affluent countries where single mothers are given housing, clothes, education, and food to raise their children. The former end elicits empathy and sadness for the condition of the children, while the latter end is upsetting because some in that society are asked to take responsibility for the poor decisions of others.

There will always be those who point out exceptional individuals who were conceived in squalor and saved through charity. The point being that they would not be alive if this moral imperative were in general acceptance. In this retroactive thinking, there's always a question as to whether so many children should suffer so horribly so one child can thrive. This even opens the door to the rights of unconceived children. This is irrational.

Eugenic aspects have been suggested in that this imperative would diminish the population in specific ways. This might be the case if one were to dissuade those who know they have heritable diseases from having children. Other than that, no consistent genetic characteristics can be specifically assigned to this population of underprivileged children.

The only hope is that the rationality and enlightenment represented by this moral imperative, as much as anything else, simply serves to abate ignorance and suffering. If enough people in positions of influence repeated it; then, it could eventually become the politically correct view and its logical simplicity would become broadly accepted.