Erroneous.
Likely, that which you allude, would be judged manslaughter or, most likely, negligent homicide.
For it to be murder, an intent to kill must be present and a direct act to kill executed. Neglect is rarely an intent to kill, and it is not judged a direct act.
For it to be manslaughter, a non-premeditated act leading directly to death must be involved. Neglect does not necessarily lead directly to death, and, it's not considered an "act".
The likely verdict in the cases you would cite would logically be negligent homicide.
Not murder.
But again, the overwhelming vast majority of the cases you cite do not involve true neglect.
They simply involved difficult impoverished times that requires parents to be more focused on earning a living than tending to all the needs of their kids.
Poverty suffered by people, and attempting to cope with it, is simply not a murder weapon.
Erroneous.
I would not "force" anything.
I advocate allowing them to live their life without being murdered.
I advocate penalties for those who so murder.
I advocate better effort made by both men and women to avoid creating conceptions they really don't intend to carry to term.
Erroneous and irrelevant.
I don't "campaign", as you histrionically put it, for people to be born so they can just "wither away".
I advocate not murdering people for any reason no matter what their age.
End of topically relevant sentence.
Your concern about what to do to correct population mismanagement belongs in another thread.
But regardless, murder is never a solution to population mismanagement, period.
That you consider murder to be a solution to population mismanagement is horrific.
What you are like is someone who advocates murder to solve problems of population mismanagement.
Yes, that is truly horrific.
Yes, that is the bias you are employing in your specious justification of murder by abortion.
Irrelevant and erroneous.
Your statement is irrelevant to the fact that it is simply wrong to murder anyone pre and post natal alike.
Your statement is erroneous in that I do not "only support life before it's born." You like to fantasize into your mind things that were never said or implied, and thus your argument becomes an immediate loser.
If you want to find out the ways in which I support post-natal people, start a thread on the topic.
But your fantasy of post-natal neglect is not a rational justification for murderous abortion.
Topically irrelevant.
Such is not germane to the topic ... and I never presented such bias in my arguments.
I know you like to fantasize that I'm religious when I'm not and that I'm only anti-abortion when in fact I'm pro-life, but your fantasies are erroneous, and, obviously, irrelevant.
Ha! Me thinks you doth project too much! 
You are arguing the pro-abortionist position with pro-abortionist sophistry.
You have made it clear in your arguments that you support murderous abortion.
If you are now saying that you think that abortion is "not" okay, you have a schizoid way of arguing it.
Translation: "I, Mare, think that it is better to commit murderous abortion than to have that person grow up in poverty and neglect."
Don't for a moment try to say that you think abortion isn't okay.
I find your erroneous transference and projection to be inapplicable to the matter at hand.
Again, you would be the pot calling the kettle black, except I don't qualify as a kettle.
