Yes, but it's a slippery slope. We might consider MS a disability today and abort a fetus. Tomorrow, we might abort a fetus with a 90% chance of having red hair. What we perceive to be a disability is a moving target.

I believe it is the right of the parents to choose. On saying this, I think doctors need to be sure their patient knows all the different alternatives, costs involved, different support groups, and marital advice, and as much about the dissability as possible so the parents can make a better decision. What one person can deal with another person can't.I know people are already making these decisions and totally support their decision either way, having had the joy of working with the disabled, but also seeing the strain it can put on the support people. But the option needs to remain available.

Yes! We should make it retroactive and we should reclaim all those parking spaces too. ;)

Edit: Of course we should. I'm all for pre-life euthanasia. In fact, I do believe that these abortions should be forced. The only problem is that's very very hard to push into law.

Definitely not. Who are we to say that someone else's life is worthless, just because of a disability? Obviously their lives will be difficult, but they still experience emotions, thoughts, and have friends and family relationships. They show affection, they care about others, and even the most severe cases communicate, if you pay enough attention.

I have a younger brother who is severely disabled, that's how I know these things.

The only case in which I think a disabled person should be aborted is if the woman's life is in danger, and if the baby will most likely not survive for more than a painful hour(see the late term abortion debate, iamdavidh's comment. Thanks btw, David, for letting me know about that disease. I would never have fully been aware of the late term abortion argument if you hadn't mentioned that.).

If the questions is personal, "Can I take care of this child?", "Do I want to give birth to this child?", "Is my child's disability too severe?", et cetera... Then the answer is personal.

If the question is economical, "Can I afford to care for this child?", then the answer is Yes. Government,I feel, is an insurance policy. A lot of these diseases have the potential to happen to anyone, and so as a society we should care for them.

Why should we say to a mother who's child has a chromosomal disease that she must abort, but a mother who's baby looks "fine" gets to keep hers. There are still disabilities that occur later in life, some not so late.

Many "disabled" persons make great contributions to society. And modern science has helped to raise their quality of life, and hasthe potential to go further.

There is a fine line between rationality and cruelty.

I think this should be a personal choice, up to the mother or couple.

Absolutely NOT! Who are we to decide who will live and who will not live? And how far do we go with what constitutes a disability? Who is to decide that? The only exception I can think of right now is if the child is going to be born a complete vegetable. Perhaps under those circumstances it would be right to do but no others I can think of. People with disabilities contribute to our society on a daily basis. Every year I buy my calendars and greeting cards from a business called the "Foot and Mouth Painting Artists." You should see the kind of craft they put out! They are and have been disabled...shall we simply have thrown them away as a waste to society? I think not. I know many people in the world who have all their faculties and limbs and they're absolutely a drain on normal society. I'd just as soon we put them to the side and keep all the disabled people in the mainstream if possible.