Tony, it is very important to understand that under the Nazis abortion of the proscribed groups required by law the consent of the pregnant woman.
In general also the doctors, implementing Nazi eugenics policy, were not coerced. Historians, Henry Friedlander, Robert Proctor and Robert Jay Lifton confirm this.
As Lifton concludes from his study of the psychology of “The Killing Professionals”: “Genocidal projects require the active participation of educated professionals — physicians, scientists…lawyers, clergy, university professors and other teachers — who combine to create not only the technology of genocide but much of its ideological rationale, moral climate, and organizational process….”
“The individuals involved in the "euthanasia" …of ‘lives not worth living’ were never ordered to kill their patients. They were simply empowered to do so”. “ It was a 'can' and not a 'must order'.” "The killing system depended on the cooperation of bureaucrats, physicians, and parents"

The truth is that the Nuremberg condemnation of abortion as "a crime against humanity" was not simply limited to the practice of coerced abortions but extended to voluntary abortions as well. It is the abortion itself that is judged an atrocity against human life, against the lives of unborn children, not “racially perfect”, who should have been given “protection of the law”. Coercion was treated as an additional factor of rights violation but it is clear from the Nuremberg records that it does not constitute the whole violation.

The most precious gift we can ever receive is that of life and it is given to us by GOD, by what right does anybody have to destroy this gift? Instead of campaigning to end the life of the unborn child because of a possible disability how about you folk who are all for this, start practising some tolerance for the less fortunate, some understaning and some love and patience, it helps see things differently.

RitaJ, I am not wrong merely because I have a different opinion to you.
Obviously, if 9 out of 10 known Down's Syndrome pregnancies are aborted, then I am not alone in my thoughts.

No one can force you to have an abortion, just as you can't force any woman to go through with a pregnancy if she really doesn't want it...

Australiancrawl states we can't abort his God's creations.
Well, this same God seems ok with aborting his/her/it's own 'creations' by miscarriages or stillbirths.
Leave women and their pregnancies alone.

Tony, the differences between practices in today’s Genetic Counselling Clinics and the coercive practices in the Third Reich may not be as clear-cut as you imagine. Australian governments have expended millions of dollars establishing Clinics containing highly-trained staff and expensive gene analysis apparatus in today’s maternity hospitals. Do you naively believe there is no pressure on these facilities to “achieve outcomes” in terms of the number of “defective” babies identified for elimination? During an encounter between a single-minded, highly trained Genetic Counselor seeking to score another “hit” for the monthly statistical report to the Health Department, do you think an expectant mother with limited English skills or little scientific training is truly on an equal footing? Also, given that modern day gene analysis methods can detect millions of mutations in the genome of every one of us, who precisely gets to say whether an individual mutation should earmark anyone for elimination? Can you see no legitimacy whatsoever in these concerns?

First they came for the kids with Down syndrome, and I said nothing because my kid didn't have Down syndrome. Then they came for the kids with haemophilia, and I said nothing because my kid didn't have haemophilia. Then they came for the kids with osteogenesis imperfecta ... Philip Burcham. See http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/03/04/3703049.htm#comments

Tony Lavis's naive and trusting belief that women who undergo pre-natal genetic testing get to make an "informed medical decision without pressure from the state" if their foetus is thought to have some defect or other makes me laugh out loud - in a bitter sort of way. Sorry Tony but you have no idea what you are talking about. Scores of women who have contributed to this debate (mainly in the UK and US), along with several women I have talked to personally, have testified as to the intense pressure they were placed under to terminate more or less immediately, accompanied by all the sorts of dire warnings and gloomy, negative predictions reflected in Suseonline's contribution. Many women have testified that when they pointblank refused to accede to a termination, their child was later born perfectly healthy and without any disability. Doctors and their tests are very far from perfect, believe it or not. And Suseonline - you are entirely wrong to conflate this discussion with the question of a woman's right to have a termination in general. Are you aware that if a scan or test reveals an unborn child has a disability, then doctors legally can and do terminate up to 38 weeks' gestation, killing the foetus with a saline injection into the heart, which then requires the woman to go through a still-birth, since it is way too late for the sort of termination possible in earlier stage pregnancies? We are not talking about foetuses aborted because for whatever reason, a woman does not wish to go through a pregnancy and have a baby (as in my view is her right).Usually, we are talking about babies that are desperately wanted but who get aborted solely because they are suspected of being disabled - often to the lifelong trauma, grief and guilt of the women involved who can never know if they made the right decision or not.