>Where do you draw the line?

That's sort of the point; there's no escaping drawing a line, and it's always going to be somewhat arbitrary.

Honestly, if it weren't, the abortion debate would end pretty much the same day.

>If you allow this, then people
>will start aborting or killing off children because they have
>a disability, or because they weren't a blonde haired blue
>eyed boy.

What do you mean, start? Essentially, this has happened (for example) in our lifetimes in China with male vs. female children. Note: I'm not saying that's right either, and there are certainly absolute consequences to be paid for it down the line.

That being said, at some point, reality being reality, there's always going to be triage and choices to be made. Earth can't support an infinite amount of human life, and there isn't an infinite amount of money to spend on health care. Those choices might take the form of limiting reproduction (like China) vs. killing or permitting death, and I don't think anyone doesn't really think the former isn't a better choice, inasfar as it's available.

>I'll give you that I agree with Tac on every point he is
>making and that the two issues are separate.

Do you think there's zero cause and effect there? Not any at all?

Ethically, I can agree that they are separate issues after a fashion, but the reality is that one affects the other to some degree. The picture's bigger than just those two things, of course. Maybe you can compensate for more unwanted children with also improving the quality of public schools or other programs so you still end up with less violent criminals. Nothing in the world occurs in a vacuum.

>I will say that
>I do support helping people take care of their children and
>I'm "conservative." I think we should make it easier
>(monetarily) for people to adopt.

I'd agree with that as well. Get more kids into the homes of people who actually want them. Growing up in a string of foster homes or institutions isn't a good substitute.