Quite the contrary Bren, I see the woman who continues with a pregnancy, despite knowing the child will be severely disabled as the "selfish rather than altruistic" one. This is particularly so if there are other children, or more planned.

I have seen a number of families torn apart, & other children very restricted in their opportunities as the mother lavishes love, time, attention & money on her "special" child.

We are already struggling to provide adequately for all the people on earth now, without adding more that will require the full time services of another to support them. It is this selfishness of breeding women that adds far too much stress on others, a stress they have no right to impose just to satisfy their urge to breed.

Dear Bren,

<<Once you sanction the abortion of some classes of disabled unborn children or their later infanticide , the question arises of where do you draw the line.>>

So fortunately, it is not for you and me to draw the line, but for the parents, so each set of parents acts according to their own level of morality.

We are all accountable to God, no escape from that, but parents should not be accountable to society regarding their children, born or unborn, until and unless they appealed to society to give their child a legal status.

This usually occurs when the mother is admitted to hospital to give birth, especially if it is a public hospital, and signs forms to the effect that she doesn't have to pay for it herself, but Medicare would foot the bill. Otherwise it occurs the first time the child is taken to a doctor, say for immunisations, or to a public (or partially publicly-funded) child-care or kindergarten, or when the parents seek family-benefits from the government. On top of that, I even suggest a facility whereby parents can elect to give legal status earlier to their yet unborn child.

However, in those rare cases when no assistance whatsoever was asked from the state in regard to a child and a request for a legal status was never made - neither by the father, nor by the mother, nor by the child herself, nothing should legally prevent the parents from doing with their own child as they like.

Socially of course, you have every right to feel contempt towards parents who kill their child, born or unborn, and every right not to befriend them, nor even to speak with them or trade with them or work with them, etc. However, from a legal point of view, the onus to draw red lines regarding the morality of others or the lack thereof, should not fall on us or on our political representatives.

Yuyutsu

You are missing the point.

Neither the article nor my remarks were adressing the issue of abortion or infanticide per se. At issue was the statement that "It is therefore right, says Singer, to abort a baby with a disability and try again for a 'normal' child".

The right or otherwise to choose was not the main issue. Instead I was arguing against the idea that parents OUGHT TO abort any unborn child expected to be born disabled.

This is an interesting article, but it makes two assumption that I disagree with.

The first is that we can judge how much society values a person by how likely that class of person is to be aborted. This is a plausible relationship: societies that value male over female children and allow gender-based abortions, for example, tend to have a higher proportion of male babies. But it is not a necessary one. I’d guess that poor single women are more likely than middle-class married ones to have abortions. This reflects how much harder it is for them to raise children, not that society values their children less. I would guess than many Down syndrome foetuses are aborted because of greater financial, emotional, time and family pressures of raising a Down syndrome child, and the uncertainty about how they will fare when their parents can no longer care for them. I admire mothers who love and care for their Down syndrome children, but I would hesitate to judge one who decided not to bring a Down syndrome foetus into the world.

The second, which lies at the heart of most variations in the abortion debate, is at what point one becomes a person. This does not mean that we “judge personhood by capacity” as Vaughan claims – A Down syndrome child is no less a person than everyone else. But a foetus, with Down syndrome or not, is not a “person”. The seemingly harsh criteria of utilitarianism – what quality of life would this person have? what burden would they be on their families and the wider community? – may be appropriate when considering whether to abort a foetus, but have no bearing on the rights and respect we owe a child.

all I can say is thank God that Richard Dawkins and Singer (supporter of bestiality) are not God. Their self righteous indignation and lack of compassion just shows how vile one's mind/heart becomes when you deny your Creator.

Dear Bren,

<<The right or otherwise to choose was not the main issue. Instead I was arguing against the idea that parents OUGHT TO abort any unborn child expected to be born disabled.>>

Oh my, I am sorry! I was not even aware that such disgusting ideas go around.