I think killing babies is alright.

 The thinning of the herd through infant mortality has been a method of speciation for the entirety of human evolution. Why is it bad?

I agree with your logical deduction process nearly entirely Endyss. The only fallacy I find is a presumption of values. I fail to see the inherent value placed upon the idea of life. Anyone who can explain to me logically where a being who simply manages to task of breathing and haveing a beating heart <and note this will fault this debate as well in consideration to pre-term births/abortions> has an inherent right to life.

 Yes most legal systems make a judgement against the taking of anothers life against their wishes, but in the case of newborns and non-borns, who establishes this right? Where does this right come from?

 We live in a world that is populated in excess as it is. Nature regularly reminds us of this through "famines", tsunami's and other "disasters." I use the quotation not to mock the idea's, but rather to cast a shadow on the general context of the words. Sending food aids to countries that are lacking of food is considered a noble idea and teaches of the civilization of the human species. It also sustains and increases a population beyond the point of the local food supply. This is not unusual, as the ancient greeks and many others had to trade or wage war for supplies as well. I believe these are good concepts however, to wholesale give away food and sustain/grow populations without the requirement of trade is an error. The quote's around disaster simply implies that the removal of a large biomass may be of benefit to the species even to the detriment of individuals. I would not be so hasty to state the word disaster applies to all of these events.

 Yes, I agree with the logic behind the simple 1 trumps 2, or vice versa debate. However I disagree with the debate. Throughout human history, all 6 thousand plus years of it, a child has not been an independant person. Most cultures adopt the teenage years as a boundary point for self-reliance, but almost none contend that a young child, under the age of say 2, is essentially a parasite. Without the mother or a surrogate around, this child is not an indepent. It is the very definition of dependant. I am of the opinion that up to a point of independance the child does not carry the rights of an independant. As such, I can find no fault with the concept of abortion being the choice of the ones who engaged in the conception. The embryo and child does not have rights that trump those of the parents <both of them for that matter>  especially not in a society that prides itself upon freedom.

 However, I would be rather keen to understand your position, Endyss, on how an non-born ears/inherits/gains the rights that I believe you are of the opinion should protect it from what could constitute murder.