Actually Danielle, I think you misrepresent my position on this subject. I make no argument "against abortion of non-optimal children" at all. In fact, I believe that a woman should be able to abort a foetus for any reason they choose, provided it's done early enough. I just don't think it's going to be a factor in the "designer babies" issue, especially in light of the reasons you have expanded upon, that is the trend towards a narrowing window of opportunity which comes from delayed reproduction and pregnancy. How many chances would one get? So, the trend will be toward pre-implantation screening and/or modification or post-natal treatments.

wizofaus,

I understand your argument. Also, the common precedure of imaging the unborn in utero, which the parents see, would undoubtedly present a reality, rather than perhaps a "pie in the sky" expectation. As you say there are a variety of concerns. Also, how many doctors, who see quite damaged newborns, would be prepared to abort, in the late stage of pregnancy, an otherwise healthy and perfect child. If the parents were adamant as to "optimal IQ" (which seems fairly "elastic" anyway, predicated only on what the parents could contribute) perhaps the child could be given up for adoption. Then what if the parents never produce their "ideal" .. indeed, at a certain point, find out that having a child was no longer possible ...?

Currently, I know of a couple whose unborn has been found to have Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY). The mother refuses to abort, the father wants it. The usual prognosis is that Klinefelter's leads to diminished IQ. However, I have a friend with this condition, who is currently doing his doctorate.

Also, I know of a case where a late term "abortion" - actually an "induced labour" - was undertaken, because the baby had "virtually" no brain at all. Those involved, including the mother, were in ageement as to the necessity of this procedure

Steven, Danielle and Bugsey,

It never ceases to amaze me how elastic can be the consciences of God fearing 21st Century men and women in Australia today.

To think that so called sophisticated and intelligent people can blank off their consciences and commit murder on their own for no good reason both appalls and puzzles me.

I am NOT condemning anyone here but the inherent baseness of "modern" man and woman would appear not to have changed for thousands of years.

Is there some sort of survival mechanism blank out gene that allows this to happen ?

As the arguments have progressed here,they may actually be revealing our propensity to use commercial science as our support for modern infanticide , verses traditional infanticide where lack of food was often the motivating factor.

As we have seen with wars and torture over the years - we ain't pretty.

kartiya jim, it never ceases to amaze me that anyone can still be "God fearing" in the 21st century.

Our collective moral conscience is quite obviously elastic. 2000 years ago people thought nothing of pouring into stadiums to watch innocent victims being torn apart by lions. As little as 70 years ago there were still public hangings in the U.S. Today we object to relatively "humane" forms of capital punishment for convicted criminals.

All the evidence points towards us become gradually more respectful of any "right to life". This includes unborn foetuses - in earlier times, infanticide was a necessary survival mechanism and thought little of. Today we can hardly imagine the circumstances in which a mother would want to abort a late-term foetus. But we equally recognise that there are externalities that mean such an act is not morally equivalent to murder, despite its superficial similarities.
And further, we know too well that when mothers are desperate enough, they will opt for abortions whether they are legal or not, and the illegal variety is not just terminal for the foetus, but quite often for the mother too.