Does a starving animal eating her young count as natural selection?

Actually yes, but it is socially unacceptable to most people to be objective in such a way with our own species. As a matter of fact, it is sometimes taken to the point that the life of one individual is given more value than the survival of the group, at least in word. But seldom in practice, as can be seen in situations where survival is in obvious jeopardy. While sitting in the comfy chair, the lives of those a person would trample to get to the liferaft first in a real situation are presented as much more important.

Taking into account things like resource allocation presents a problem for most people when applied to moral situations. It's like the old story of a liferaft with just enough supplies to allow the people already aboard to survive. Would they pick up additional people in the water if they knew it probably meant none aboard would survive? Many animals will abandon their young if there is not enough food to support them, knowing that they can have more offspring later if they survive the shortage. Humans invest more in the long childhood our species experiences, so from a purely natural selection point of view it often makes slightly less sense in our species to "cut the losses" and opt for another breeding season.

Although I agree in a woman's right to choose and that a fetus at the stage of development during a legal abortion is not an independent creature, I fail to see how this has anything to do with natural selection. Although I appreciate your support for the rational standpoint... I urge you to keep your support silent until you have fully researched the topic and have a firm grasp on science. Otherwise, you will only work to discredit the side of the debate you are trying to support.

Physically humans are animals, but that is where it differs....we have a much higher level of intelligence and understanding than animals do. We can think, we know right from wrong, we can understand the words of the Bible, we can pray, we can do much more than animals can, on a higher level.

What an animal does by instinct is way different than someone trying to "prove" that this means that abortion is ok. An animal does not know what they are doing is wrong, they are trying to survive. A person KNOWS they are carrying another human inside them and they know it is wrong to kill it.

There is a BIG difference between the two.

God's law! That you find nowhere excdept in books that claim there is a god because that book tells you so. I have never heard of an animal that eats its own babies, but maybe there are one or two. I know that animals that usually give birth to several off spring in one birthing, do at times kill one or two of their babies. There seems to be a reason, and the mother makes the choice as she sees which will likely not become very strong and maybe become a burden on her and therefore hinder the growth of the others in the litter.

Natural selection is all about reproduction. If a mother kills her young then that is a negative affect on her species. (unless they are unhealthy, in that case she is strengthing the species)

I don't think this is as simple as all that though. Humans are REALLY social. Like most social animals we have to consider social rules and norms.

When I start hearing of human women eating their new born babies that may make a teeny bit of sense but I have never heard of that and am pretty darn sure I will not not so...that makes no sense at all.

Nope. One of her young might have had better genes than she had. She only ate it because it was young and helpless. It doesn't benefit the species one bit. It would be more logical to use evolution and natural selection as an excuse for letting sick people suffer and die. Real nice, huh?

No, animals are not bound by God's law on the respect for life

Human beings are special to God. This is why we don't barbeque people and eat them. Animals do not have a relationship with God. We do.