Chronic poverty, but church still pushes against contraception 

Just a joke but if they are so poor that they can't afford more children, can't they just not have sex or can't the guy just "pull out"? Well to be honest part of me thinks that if the church doesn't want them to use BC then they should be more helpful when the baby does come, since using bc would result in eternal damnation. On the other hand is it possible to just not have so many babies, I mean I would think that is common knowledge. No sex=no babies

^ It isn't actually common knowledge. People living in poverty (as well as people who aren't living in poverty) don't necessarily have access to knowledge that you and I take for granted. Two major factors are access to quality contraception and access to quality sex education. Teach people about sex and how to use contraception, and make that contraception affordable, and you move towards helping people. The abstinence message does not work because you are asking people to give up something that is a) biologically programmed into them, b) is an expression of love (poor people can love too), and c) is extremely pleasurable.

I'd like to see people having mature conversations about how we can get good quality sex education and resources into communities (as well as employment opportunities, general education etc etc), rather than blaming those who live in poverty for participating in normal human actions. Poverty dehumanises people enough without also suggesting that they should just control their sexual urges.

EDIT: There are also significant gender issues at play. Women, poor or not, aren't necessarily in the position to refuse sex, or insist that a male partner 'pull out.'

^interesting

'Just a joke but if they are so poor that they can't afford more children, can't they just not have sex or can't the guy just "pull out"?'

Pulling out is not nearly as effective as other forms of contraception in preventing pregnancy and mostly ineffective in preventing STD's.