Hmmm...so you’re saying that she is not advocating the “kill(ing)” of infant children here:
” Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.”
http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html
No, she is not advocating infanticide. She is saying it is already widely practiced. She uses the argument later on to buttress her advocacy of contraception.
Yes. She is not advocating killing the infant children. She is saying that death of later children is often the natural result and considers that the more merciful ending compared to other alternatives of life.
I am not saying I agree with her conclusions but she is NOT advocating killing.