I gave you an example. Mothers uncertain of their ability to raise an infant will abandon it to die (this is traditionally called "exposure"). It's a practice at least as old as humanity. And it conclusively demonstrates that the demand for infant care is not inelastic; these mothers aren't killing themselves trying to preserve their nonviable children. Rather, they're killing the children so that they don't die themselves in the effort to save a doomed child.
I think your example conclusively demonstrates that people in radically different economic and cultural circumstances have different attitudes towards their children. This is a completely fair conclusion, but has very little bearing when reasoning about health care for infants in modern neonatal ICUs, especially infants with rich technologist parents.
> If it was a question of saving my child's life, I'd spend every last cent I had and then go sell a kidney.
there is no distinction between being unable to raise a child, and being unable to survive the attempt. If you survive, the child will get raised. The only way to fail is by dying (or killing the child).
