Mere manners and personal consideration not arising to marital love would seem to suggest that the health interests of a spouse should suffice to trigger abstinence when necessary. One spouse has a back injury of significance. Should the other express "love" by saying: "Your back injory is no concern of mine, I want to have sex and have it now"?
The crack about Harvard tuitions is obviously meant for the mindset of American materialism which regards that next Mercedes Benz as more important than that next child. We Christians have been told to be fruitful and multiply (not until some arbitrarily chosen ideal population is achieved, but just be fruitful and multiply.) We are not told to carefully calculate an ideal number of children to be balanced against the affordability of that castle in Spain or other material excess. If children are starving, it is the Christian's obligation to feed them and not just his own kids although charity always ought to begin at home with the entitlements of one's children. We are not tripping over starving folks in rural Illinois. I cannot speak for Georgia.
I think it would have been right and sensible (though not PC) to quarantine those with AIDS. It worked with TB and it would work with AIDS. Why should the general population be exposed?
My Church via JPII says that there is room at the banquet table of life for all of God's children.
I also think that NFP is not wise but it at least does not harm the unitive aspect of the marriage. The huge risk that you reference is that a child will be born. That is a rather traditional risk and easily undertaken. I think it is wrong to "stop pregnancy" without GRAVE reason. I think that purposely getting pregnant within marriage is NOT immoral. You will not find me to be a general defender of NFP.
Those who believe in birth control should practice it so that they may be sure to be governed by those who neither believe in it nor practice it.