That depends upon the state, and what the issue is. For example, if the state is Idaho, and the issue is that the parents would rather rely on prayer than taking their child to the doctor, there's fuckall social services can do.
It's a thought experiment. You say social services will deal with negligent parents. That implies you believe social services are a valid function of government. With me so far?
Why do you assume that they're unwilling to properly provide for their kids? What if they're unable to, due to job loss?
Once again. I believe in a social safety net. There are and should be various programs to temporarily assist those in need.
And yet, you assumed that the hypothetical family we're talking about was unwilling to provide for their children and made no mention of social programs. Why is that?
Why is "killing" more justified here? It's still a human. The baby is innocent regardless of its father's sins. The mother can always go to therapy for the rape and the power of Jesus will keep her from not seeing her rapist's face every time the baby smiles. So why is this okay and not for a common town bicycle who just likes a lotta sex? Aaaaaaaand go.
I didn't get an answer to this. It's not a nonsense question. I'm sure it makes you feel funny, but too fucking bad. It's the logical consequence of what you've set up. Walk me through how you'd magically be exempted from your own rules. "Cuz I say so", won't cut it.
"allowing" abortion in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape DOES NOT mean you require abortion in those instances.
Not difficult. My wife talks with him on facebook occasionally. At any rate he and I largely settled our differences after I was in the hospital in spring of 2016.