If you could write your reply in paragraph form instead of replying directly to bite-sized pieces of mine, I would really appreciate it, this format makes it annoying to read.

I can see you have a very strong opinion on this issue. I have some background in human development, so let me remind you that demographic transition theory is one of the most widely accepted ideas in the geography community. The kind of poor that has 5+ kids as a matter of course also mostly don't make it through high school. One of our principle interventions to get teen pregnancy rates down is by educating girls. This is true in Africa, but it is also true in the US.

If you had read the paper that wikipedia quotes, you would see how much they hedge and stress that they are not dismissing the previous literature, and instead suggesting a tiny effect at extremely high developments. Suffice it to say that all of America is not at Zurich, Switzerland's level of development. To quote the abstract, "The previously negative development-fertility relationship has become J-shaped." J is not U. The best way to decrease birth rates is by raising their level of development. The demographic transition theory is basic, foundational knowledge.

My position is that there is no real risk of overpopulation any time within the next century or two given the way demographic trends are going. And even if there were, trying to control birth rates with legislation is a horrible idea. I believe bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right that no state should be able to infringe. But even besides that, the scientific literature is absolutely clear that there is a very strong negative association between rising development and fertility. In this case, the moral argument aligns with the practical one. I am almost certain you are actually unwilling to change your mind so I will leave it at that.