What you see as suffering might be seen as normal daily life to them which is terrible. The way most children in richer countries live might seem foreign to them. That being said, infant mortality is also very high in those countries so a chunk of those children born will not make it past 20 years old.
I do believe that as countries get richer the people of the country start having more responsibilities and jobs and those overwhelm the time available to take care of kids.
Many people say this. But it's worth knowing that, historically, lots of societies firmly limited reproduction when they were as poor as (say) most of Africa is now. The methods varied.
What I had in mind was people limiting their own. In the west the main mechanism was delayed marriage (i.e. saving up a socially approved amount of money first) which kept us well away from starvation 500 years ago. In china/japan I believe the pattern was more infanticide (in the same period) but know less about this.
Having children is a fundamental human activity. It gives people purpose, connection, novelty and a million other things I can't think of since I'm not a parent or a mother.
As you say, many poor people have many children. Perhaps you should look into what giving birth means to them rather than just assuming they're selfish idiots.
This statement is all but calling them selfish idiots. Your question is nothing but a self serving rhetorical for conclusions you already made.
Honestly, if you live in desperate poverty, why would you want to bring a child into the world knowing the amount of suffering that its is likely to live through? Yet the poorest people seem to be the most likely to have the most children.
Maybe another way of phrasing the headline would be:
"The poor are reproducing far faster than the rich"
It doesn't sound as shocking then.