Heinlein has the answer to your query.

"Since survival is the sine qua non, I now define "moral behavior" as "behavior that tends toward survival." I won't argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word "moral" to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define "behavior that tends toward extinction" as being "moral" without stretching the word "moral" all out of shape.

We are now ready to observe the hierarchy of moral behavior from its lowest level to its highest.

The simplest form of moral behavior occurs when a man or other animal fights for his own survival. Do not belittle such behavior as being merely selfish. Of course it is selfish. . .but selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative.
"An animal so poor in spirit that he won't even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is to crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes.

The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for your own immediate family. This is the level at which six pounds of mother cat can be so fierce that she'll drive off a police dog. It is the level at which a father takes a moonlighting job to keep his kids in college -- and the level at which a mother or father dives into a flood to save a drowning child. . .and it is still moral behavior even when it fails."
...
"Spelled out in simple Anglo-Saxon words "Patriotism" reads "Women and children first!"

And that is the moral result of realizing a self-evident biological fact: Men are expendable; women and children are not. A tribe or a nation can lose a high percentage of its men and still pick up the pieces and go on. . .as long as the women and children are saved. But if you fail to save the women and children, you've had it, you're done, you're THROUGH! You join tyrannosaurus rex, one more breed that bilged its final test.
...
"Nevertheless, as a mathematical proposition in the facts of biology, children, and women of child-bearing age, are the ultimate treasure that we must save. Every human culture is based on 'Women and children first' -- and any attempt to do it any other way leads quickly to extinction."
- Robert A. Heinlein "The Pragmatics of Patriotism".
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1165294...

You do not necessarily have to live for your child. But, a woman who won't, can't rightly wear the proud badge of "mother", as there's something missing in her soul.

Halling didn't specify any particular concrete situation. She upheld a general moral principle.

Your statement is interesting. You're suggesting there are "moral" and "immoral" ways of withholding food from one's own infant until it does of starvation. Do tell.

>if KH wants to give her opinion on this specific article

That's a rather unphilosophical, non-conceptual, and concrete-bound appraisal of the situation. Halling gave an opinion on a *general principle* regarding morality in a previous thread. For your information, general principles subsume concrete instances. The above story from Fox News is a concrete instance subsumed under Halling's general principle.

The only relevant thing about Halling giving an opinion on the above story would be if she claimed it was morally abominable that the parents withheld food from their child until it died and that it represented a *crime*; for if she claimed that, she'd be contradicting the more general principle that she upheld in the earlier thread.

She said so. It's in the thread on abortion from last week.

khalling would disagree with you. According to her, the parents' egoistic wants trump the survival needs of the infant if they decide they don't want it. By her lights, the parents have no moral obligation to help the infant survive.

According to her, no crime has been committed here at all.