What's your position on abortion? And why?

[aelle]

I love when noobs dig up a year-old, 17-page-long thread without reading it and with nothing new to add to the discussion

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by aelle

I love when noobs dig up a year-old, 17-page-long thread without reading it and with nothing new to add to the discussion

Especially when it's a man who will never go though it

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Only exceptions: rape, incest, danger to the mother.
Other than that: abortion = murder, abortion supporters = gullible idiots/ willing accomplices.

How dare you make those exceptions, in order to justify MURDER!

The baby didn't CHOOSE to be born in those situations. Why should that human being have to die, just because those peoples situations in life, happen to not be ideal for them?

And if it's a danger to the mother, then the mother made the choice to have a child, which brings risks along with it. That was her choice to make, not the poor defenseless human being growing inside of her.

You are nothing more then another willing accomplice to murder, pretending like you actually care about the sanctity of life.

[Bliss Sage]

Originally Posted by aelle

I love when noobs dig up a year-old, 17-page-long thread without reading it and with nothing new to add to the discussion

I hate it. It irritates the heck out of me! Pet peeve!

[Andrew Gubb]

My position is quite a thought-out one:

I don't know.

[Andrew Gubb]

My position on digging up threads is: I don't mind!

I don't read 17 page long discussions before adding my bit either

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by aelle

I love when noobs dig up a year-old, 17-page-long thread without reading it and with nothing new to add to the discussion

I love it when people are sarcastic and think they're really quite clever, all evidence to the contrary. There are two ways to post in a thread. One is to answer the original post, especially in the case of when it is asking for opinions. The other is to follow the string of conversation that occurs thereafter. I answered the original post, there's nothing wrong with that. Get over yourself.

Russian Rocket: I understand that you disagree with me, but next time at least make an attempt to deliver a thought out argument, rather than saying blatantly false and easily disproved things. Also, sarcasm is only effective if the points you make following said sarcasm are valid and coherent, otherwise you only look like a self-important fool.

In the case of danger to the mother, it isn't a question of ending a life for the sake of comfort or lack thereof, but rather one of two lives. If one must live and one must die, it would be cruel and unusual to force the mother to endure what amounts to a death sentence which takes nine months of prolonged mental agony before it finally is carried out. If its between two people (which a fetus is) and neither one has done anything wrong, it is abhorrent to think anybody has the right to tell one of them they cannot defend themselves and must die.

With regards to rape: it wasnt the mother's choice, and therefore she did not accept the risk of pregnancy at any point. And to be honest I find this to be the one gray area, personally I think it's preferable to have these babies be adopted if the mothers don't want them.

With regards to incest, the child will likely be born with some deformity or significant mental and/or physical impairment and would not be able to lead a happy life. If a doctor can tell that the baby won't have any of these disabilities, than that abortion should not be permitted.


Peterw: I find it so strange that women act like its entirely their call. The baby is half the man's. Who are you to decide to kill my child? Just because it's the woman's body does not mean its her decision alone.

[moonrambler]

Derek -- please make your points without rude remarks like "get over yourself" and "you look like a self-important fool." Perhaps you could read through the forum rules, posted at the top of each subforum in a sticky.

Either it's murder or it's not. If it is, the only valid reason for abortion is if the mother's life is in danger. Otherwise, abortions related to rape and incest are murder. It doesn't matter if the child has disabilities. You start going down that road, it opens up the door for women to have abortions simply because the child is going to have disabilities.

Originally Posted by DerekB

I love it when people are sarcastic and think they're really quite clever, all evidence to the contrary. There are two ways to post in a thread. One is to answer the original post, especially in the case of when it is asking for opinions. The other is to follow the string of conversation that occurs thereafter. I answered the original post, there's nothing wrong with that. Get over yourself.

Russian Rocket: I understand that you disagree with me, but next time at least make an attempt to deliver a thought out argument, rather than saying blatantly false and easily disproved things. Also, sarcasm is only effective if the points you make following said sarcasm are valid and coherent, otherwise you only look like a self-important fool.

In the case of danger to the mother, it isn't a question of ending a life for the sake of comfort or lack thereof, but rather one of two lives. If one must live and one must die, it would be cruel and unusual to force the mother to endure what amounts to a death sentence which takes nine months of prolonged mental agony before it finally is carried out. If its between two people (which a fetus is) and neither one has done anything wrong, it is abhorrent to think anybody has the right to tell one of them they cannot defend themselves and must die.

With regards to rape: it wasnt the mother's choice, and therefore she did not accept the risk of pregnancy at any point. And to be honest I find this to be the one gray area, personally I think it's preferable to have these babies be adopted if the mothers don't want them.

With regards to incest, the child will likely be born with some deformity or significant mental and/or physical impairment and would not be able to lead a happy life. If a doctor can tell that the baby won't have any of these disabilities, than that abortion should not be permitted.


Peterw: I find it so strange that women act like its entirely their call. The baby is half the man's. Who are you to decide to kill my child? Just because it's the woman's body does not mean its her decision alone.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Derek -- please make your points without rude remarks like "get over yourself" and "you look like a self-important fool." Perhaps you could read through the forum rules, posted at the top of each subforum in a sticky.

Either it's murder or it's not. If it is, the only valid reason for abortion is if the mother's life is in danger. Otherwise, abortions related to rape and incest are murder. It doesn't matter if the child has disabilities. You start going down that road, it opens up the door for women to have abortions simply because the child is going to have disabilities.

Personally I felt it was rude to call me a "noob" who is disrespectful of forum etiquette rather than acknowledge what I actually said, or for somebody to insinuate that I am a hypocrite just because they disagree with me. But you're right, I may have overreacted, and if anybody was unduly offended I apologize. Like I said with regards to rape, I find it to be the gray area. I think that the child hasn't done anything wrong and nothing is wrong with it, so it shouldn't be "murdered". I just wasn't sure how prepared women on this forum would be for me stating that "if you're raped that's too bad, but you still have to have the baby", but I suppose that that is indeed what I believe. With regard to incest, I think that if a child is going to be significantly handicapped it might very well be better off not being born and that a mother (and father) are best equipped to determine if the child will be able to lead a happy life. Many will disagree I'm sure, but I don't have any doubts.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Personally I felt it was rude to call me a "noob" who is disrespectful of forum etiquette rather than acknowledge what I actually said, or for somebody to insinuate that I am a hypocrite just because they disagree with me. But you're right, I may have overreacted, and if anybody was unduly offended I apologize. Like I said with regards to rape, I find it to be the gray area. I think that the child hasn't done anything wrong and nothing is wrong with it, so it shouldn't be "murdered". I just wasn't sure how prepared women on this forum would be for me stating that "if you're raped that's too bad, but you still have to have the baby", but I suppose that that is indeed what I believe. With regard to incest, I think that if a child is going to be significantly handicapped it might very well be better off not being born and that a mother (and father) are best equipped to determine if the child will be able to lead a happy life. Many will disagree I'm sure, but I don't have any doubts.

Who are you, or the parents, to decide that a handicap child will not be able to lead a happy life. Murder is murder, whether you are able to justify it or not. You are pretty much opening the door to killing the baby, if the parents find out it will be deformed or handicap. We can already figure out if there will be something wrong with the baby, even from healthy parents. So, you are saying it's ok to just kill those babies because we feel they might not live happy lives? I've met handicap people, and they tend to be much happier and more adjusted then most "normal" people I meet. So, lets not judge a person before they are even born, alright?

And by your logic, a mother and father is best equipped to determine if a child should be born. They can easily say ( and do) that a child born to THEM, will not lead a happy life, because they don't want that child, and aren't ready to raise them. And there for, just like your handicap child, they can decide that it's best to kill that baby, before it's born into such a horrible life of suffering.

You can't have it both ways, and point out that some people are allowed to be murdered, by your predetermined guidelines, but anyone else who does it, are murders, while you are nice and innocent.

And why is it that you think that my points aren't as valid as yours, and just assume they are sarcastic? People might as well assume your points are sarcastic as well. Lets not judge, lest ye be judged in kind.

And being called a noob/newb/newbie is par for the course for ANY forum. If a person is new and barely posted, and indeed, only new people bring dead threads back to life, then they are newbs. That's just the way it is. She wasn't doing it as an insult or to be rude. If you take something as rude, then that's on you, not the original person. Tho, she wasn't even talking to you apparently, which shows your newbishness : D

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Personally I felt it was rude to call me a "noob" who is disrespectful of forum etiquette rather than acknowledge what I actually said,

She wasn't referring to you -- she was referring to the person who posted above you.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Who are you, or the parents, to decide that a handicap child will not be able to lead a happy life. Murder is murder, whether you are able to justify it or not. You are pretty much opening the door to killing the baby, if the parents find out it will be deformed or handicap. We can already figure out if there will be something wrong with the baby, even from healthy parents. So, you are saying it's ok to just kill those babies because we feel they might not live happy lives? I've met handicap people, and they tend to be much happier and more adjusted then most "normal" people I meet. So, lets not judge a person before they are even born, alright?

And by your logic, a mother and father is best equipped to determine if a child should be born. They can easily say ( and do) that a child born to THEM, will not lead a happy life, because they don't want that child, and aren't ready to raise them. And there for, just like your handicap child, they can decide that it's best to kill that baby, before it's born into such a horrible life of suffering.

You can't have it both ways, and point out that some people are allowed to be murdered, by your predetermined guidelines, but anyone else who does it, are murders, while you are nice and innocent.

And why is it that you think that my points aren't as valid as yours, and just assume they are sarcastic? People might as well assume your points are sarcastic as well. Lets not judge, lest ye be judged in kind.

And being called a noob/newb/newbie is par for the course for ANY forum. If a person is new and barely posted, and indeed, only new people bring dead threads back to life, then they are newbs. That's just the way it is. She wasn't doing it as an insult or to be rude. If you take something as rude, then that's on you, not the original person. Tho, she wasn't even talking to you apparently, which shows your newbishness : D

Who are you to judge a handicapped person's happiness any more than me. As I stated, if the child could lead a happy life it should not be murdered. If its going to be born a deaf blind transvestite hemophiliac paraplegic with down syndrome and a speech impediment who spends it's days in a constant state of pain and agonizing depression, it shouldn't be born. If its going to have a below average IQ and skip merrily along the street every day, than obviously it isn't right to abort/murder it. Your second point about a mother and father deciding that a child won't be happy with them as parents is irrelevant entirely, since the child can be adopted, because (as I said), abortion is not the only option. And she was talking to me, since it is doubtful that the population reaching 7 billion was being discussed in January (considering it just happened) and she stated that somebody "had nothing new to bring to the discussion". The seven billion population is clearly new, and therefore she was talking to me. So not only are YOU a noob for thinking otherwise, your doubly a noob since before your edit you thought she was, but than thought about it and changed your mind after reading the moderators comment. How do you like them apples, Nooby McNoobnewb

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by DerekB

The seven billion population is clearly new, and therefore she was talking to me. So not only are YOU a noob for thinking otherwise, your doubly a noob since before your edit you thought she was, but than thought about it and changed your mind after reading the moderators comment. How do you like them apples, Nooby McNoobnewb

I can't even tell whether you are talking to me or RR here or if you think we're the same person. 'Cause I'm the one who said she wasn't referring to you, but I didn't say any of this stuff about noobs. [edit -- OK, I see RR's edit.]

She was NOT referring to you -- because you were not the one who bumped the thread, and she specifically commented on people who "dig up" old threads. You didn't dig up an old thread, you responded after the thread got bumped. And the other person is actually the noob, since her joining date is November 2011, while you have been here seven months already.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by DerekB

If its going to be born a deaf blind transvestite hemophiliac paraplegic with down syndrome and a speech impediment who spends it's days in a constant state of pain and agonizing depression, it shouldn't be born.

Since they can't forecast all this with an amnio, how are you going to judge which babies should be born?

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Who are you to judge a handicapped person's happiness any more than me. As I stated, if the child could lead a happy life it should not be murdered. If its going to be born a deaf blind transvestite hemophiliac paraplegic with down syndrome and a speech impediment who spends it's days in a constant state of pain and agonizing depression, it shouldn't be born. If its going to have a below average IQ and skip merrily along the street every day, than obviously it isn't right to abort/murder it.

You have no consistent philosophy--ie, since you make exceptions you don't derive this stuff from first principles--and yet you say something is "obvious" when you are talking about who has the right to live. That ♥♥♥♥ is dangerous.

Also, transvestite is someone who cross dresses, which is not a disorder, it's a behavior, and it definitely can't be known prenatally. You probably meant hermaphrodite, which also shouldn't impede someone's ability to live a happy life.

Though I'll usually spell out my position thoughtfully, I've already done that in this thread and am not going to waste my time on its resurrection. But, I will post something that sums it up concisely (and rather brashly).

[elucidate]

I can't rep you right now...but I loved your post Mariana.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Its murder, plain and simple. It isn't a potential baby, its just a baby.

Um...no! It's your opinion...and that's all.

A baby is a baby...an egg is an egg, and a foetus is a tiny tiny creature that is not even a formed baby. I don't get why people won't recognize that.

Oh, and you seem to take offense very easily to things people say which aren't even that offensive. Just an observation.

Noob stands for new person...which is what you are. Maybe you need to take your own advice and get over it?

[ZephyrusX]

Personally, I would prefer if you just kept a consistent argument. If you really believe that it is murder, say so even in cases like rape. Making inconsistent claims because you are afraid of how women (why not men?) will react just makes things confusing, and besides, most of us already heard this all before. No need to 'hide' anything from us. Or be afraid of us.

Originally Posted by DerekB

Personally I felt it was rude to call me a "noob" who is disrespectful of forum etiquette rather than acknowledge what I actually said, or for somebody to insinuate that I am a hypocrite just because they disagree with me. But you're right, I may have overreacted, and if anybody was unduly offended I apologize. Like I said with regards to rape, I find it to be the gray area. I think that the child hasn't done anything wrong and nothing is wrong with it, so it shouldn't be "murdered". I just wasn't sure how prepared women on this forum would be for me stating that "if you're raped that's too bad, but you still have to have the baby", but I suppose that that is indeed what I believe. With regard to incest, I think that if a child is going to be significantly handicapped it might very well be better off not being born and that a mother (and father) are best equipped to determine if the child will be able to lead a happy life. Many will disagree I'm sure, but I don't have any doubts.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I can't rep you right now...but I loved your post Mariana.

Thank you.


Derek, a question: since you seem to think a fetus is a person, and that a fetus should be killed "If its going to be born a deaf blind transvestite hemophiliac paraplegic with down syndrome and a speech impediment" should you kill the adults out there who are "deaf blind transvestite hemophiliac paraplegic with down syndrome and a speech impediment"?

[Criseyde]

Since we're repeating things, I'm going to go ahead and repeat something I said earlier in the thread. Before abortion, there was infanticide. Throughout human history, people who couldn't support any more children would drown them, strangle them, or abandon them to die.

Accidental pregnancies happen, no matter what, pretty much. I have a friend who just got pregnant with twins despite having an IUD -- and short of sterilization, the IUD is the most effective form of birth control. She's married and she already has children, so none of the slut shaming arguments even apply. I'm pretty sure she's going to go ahead and carry them to term, but situations like that comprise 2/3rds of the abortions performed in the US: women with longterm partners who already have children and can't afford another. Who is anybody else to say they should be forced to keep them -- and reduce the quality of life for their other children, the ones who already exist? Put the whole family (further) into poverty? Cause more kids to go hungry? Sanctity of life... right.

[Criseyde]

Also, I'm about to shamelessly steal an argument from one of my other friends, who is made of awesome. How come nobody ever says things like "if you can't get your peen out before you're ready to support a woman all through pregnancy, and after it, and support and raise a child for as long as necessary, then you had better be ready to deal with the consequence of YOUR CHOICE TO HAVE SEX"?

[Agota]

I probably wouldn't have an abortion myself: in an extreme case, assuming I'd have the conditions to safely carry the baby for nine months, I'd give it away for adoption. I don't judge women who have abortions though. That is their choice and they have a right to it.

This won't be a popular opinion, but I do think that men have much less say on the topic than women do. Why? Yes, baby it's half yours, but it's not you who will have to go through pregnancy which is not that easy. It's also not you who will have to deal with judgment and slut shaming in many cases. On the other hand, it's not you who will have the abortion and then have to deal with trauma from it. Men are entitled to have their opinions on the topics, but bit would help to realize that ultimately, it's a woman's decision, since SHE is the one who will either have an abortion or give birth.

On the other hand, I think that women who have abortions without telling their boyfriends and women who don't take the opinion of their boyfriends into consideration are not acting very nice. I can imagine that it should break a man's heart if he wants a baby and his girlfriend simply gets an abortion without any consideration for his feelings. I think that maybe it would be possible to work things out when that's the case, since guy could offer the solutions, let's say be the stay at home parent if girl is concerned about her career, etc.

Anyway, what really bothers me is that everyone seems to have compassion for fetus, which is all very well, but so few people express compassion towards women who have to make a decision. It shouldn't be fun to be a teenager who accidentally got pregnant and is afraid that her parent will kick her out if they'll find out. Where's your compassion to her, the defenders of morality?

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Also, I'm about to shamelessly steal an argument from one of my other friends, who is made of awesome. How come nobody ever says things like "if you can't get your peen out before you're ready to support a woman all through pregnancy, and after it, and support and raise a child for as long as necessary, then you had better be ready to deal with the consequence of YOUR CHOICE TO HAVE SEX"?

This is a very good point. We are always talking about women who get abortion, but since men want to be in the picture, the first question is where is the father? Did he took responsibility? Will he support her throughout her pregnancy and both her and her baby during the initial few years of kid's life? In many cases, if the father would step up, the woman wouldn't get an abortion. You're correct, it's half his child, but in many cases, he is not around. What's up with that?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Agota

This is a very good point. We are always talking about women who get abortion, but since men want to be in the picture, the first question is where is the father? Did he took responsibility? Will he support her throughout her pregnancy and both her and her baby during the initial few years of kid's life? In many cases, if the father would step up, the woman wouldn't get an abortion. You're correct, it's half his child, but in many cases, he is not around. What's up with that?

I've known so many men who have done this. It's shameful.

They want to plant the seed but they don't want to have anything to do with it once it's grown. They just want to skip off and plant more seeds, and then complain that women don't let them have enough say about whether they should keep the child or not.

Having a child takes responsability, and whilst there are men who do take responsability and are real men, there are also lots who don't. I call them boys.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

You have no consistent philosophy--ie, since you make exceptions you don't derive this stuff from first principles--and yet you say something is "obvious" when you are talking about who has the right to live. That ♥♥♥♥ is dangerous.

Also, transvestite is someone who cross dresses, which is not a disorder, it's a behavior, and it definitely can't be known prenatally. You probably meant hermaphrodite, which also shouldn't impede someone's ability to live a happy life.

Though I'll usually spell out my position thoughtfully, I've already done that in this thread and am not going to waste my time on its resurrection. But, I will post something that sums it up concisely (and rather brashly).

You're right, I used the wrong word, I did mean hermaphrodite. Good catch. My philosophy is consistent. It hasn't changed. I just initially held back from making the claim about raped women. Also, I'm not some religious wack-job. I'm jewish by birth and had a bar mitzvah, but I dont have a lot of faith in the existence of god and haven't been to temple in six years.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Thank you.


Derek, a question: since you seem to think a fetus is a person, and that a fetus should be killed "If its going to be born a deaf blind transvestite hemophiliac paraplegic with down syndrome and a speech impediment" should you kill the adults out there who are "deaf blind transvestite hemophiliac paraplegic with down syndrome and a speech impediment"?

They shouldn't have had to be born in the first place. If they're miserable and unhappy, than yes, assisted suicide is permissible in my opinion.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Since we're repeating things, I'm going to go ahead and repeat something I said earlier in the thread. Before abortion, there was infanticide. Throughout human history, people who couldn't support any more children would drown them, strangle them, or abandon them to die.

Accidental pregnancies happen, no matter what, pretty much. I have a friend who just got pregnant with twins despite having an IUD -- and short of sterilization, the IUD is the most effective form of birth control. She's married and she already has children, so none of the slut shaming arguments even apply. I'm pretty sure she's going to go ahead and carry them to term, but situations like that comprise 2/3rds of the abortions performed in the US: women with longterm partners who already have children and can't afford another. Who is anybody else to say they should be forced to keep them -- and reduce the quality of life for their other children, the ones who already exist? Put the whole family (further) into poverty? Cause more kids to go hungry? Sanctity of life... right.

One word: Adoption. It is extremely uncomplicated, I don't understand why people keep overlooking it.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Um...no! It's your opinion...and that's all.

A baby is a baby...an egg is an egg, and a foetus is a tiny tiny creature that is not even a formed baby. I don't get why people won't recognize that.

Oh, and you seem to take offense very easily to things people say which aren't even that offensive. Just an observation.

Noob stands for new person...which is what you are. Maybe you need to take your own advice and get over it?

A baby is a tiny creature that is not a formed child. A child is a tiny creature that is not a formed adolescent. An adolescent is a creature that is not a formed adult. Who says humanity starts at baby. I've been a member for seven months, and I generally make thoughtful (if controversial) posts. People don't have to agree with me. But neither should they attack me just because they don't like what I have to say. Address the argument, not the person.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Agota

I probably wouldn't have an abortion myself: in an extreme case, assuming I'd have the conditions to safely carry the baby for nine months, I'd give it away for adoption. I don't judge women who have abortions though. That is their choice and they have a right to it.

This won't be a popular opinion, but I do think that men have much less say on the topic than women do. Why? Yes, baby it's half yours, but it's not you who will have to go through pregnancy which is not that easy. It's also not you who will have to deal with judgment and slut shaming in many cases. On the other hand, it's not you who will have the abortion and then have to deal with trauma from it. Men are entitled to have their opinions on the topics, but bit would help to realize that ultimately, it's a woman's decision, since SHE is the one who will either have an abortion or give birth.

On the other hand, I think that women who have abortions without telling their boyfriends and women who don't take the opinion of their boyfriends into consideration are not acting very nice. I can imagine that it should break a man's heart if he wants a baby and his girlfriend simply gets an abortion without any consideration for his feelings. I think that maybe it would be possible to work things out when that's the case, since guy could offer the solutions, let's say be the stay at home parent if girl is concerned about her career, etc.

Anyway, what really bothers me is that everyone seems to have compassion for fetus, which is all very well, but so few people express compassion towards women who have to make a decision. It shouldn't be fun to be a teenager who accidentally got pregnant and is afraid that her parent will kick her out if they'll find out. Where's your compassion to her, the defenders of morality?



This is a very good point. We are always talking about women who get abortion, but since men want to be in the picture, the first question is where is the father? Did he took responsibility? Will he support her throughout her pregnancy and both her and her baby during the initial few years of kid's life? In many cases, if the father would step up, the woman wouldn't get an abortion. You're correct, it's half his child, but in many cases, he is not around. What's up with that?

By the same logic, if a man is the one who has the job, he should have sole discretion over how money is allocated. The woman has no say, since he is the one who has the job. Yet I have never met, nor do I expect I ever will, a woman who would be anything less than furious at this idea. Is it not, than, hypocritical to say that its the woman who has the baby so its her choice alone?

[ZephyrusX]

In terms of birth, I'll reiterate a question that moonrambler posed as I feel it is important. How do you know whether the baby is going to be happy? Unless you can answer that question, you are treading a uncomfortable path that may pass into eugenics. If it is the parent judging, he/she may impose his/her assumptions as to what will be or will not be a potential worthwhile and happy life, and in doing so, may terminate the fetus for no other reason other than the fact that they are personally incapable of recognizing the value of a life that is very different from theirs.

Case in point, I once had someone on here tell me that introverted babies should be aborted simply because he/she could not see the value of this personality. He/she was absolutely convinced that introverts 'suffered' unnecessarily.

Originally Posted by DerekB

They shouldn't have had to be born in the first place. If they're miserable and unhappy, than yes, assisted suicide is permissible in my opinion.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

In terms of birth, I'll reiterate a question that moonrambler posed as I feel it is important. How do you know whether the baby is going to be happy? Unless you can answer that question, you are treading a uncomfortable path that may pass into eugenics. If it is the parent judging, he/she may impose his/her assumptions as to what will be or will not be a potential worthwhile and happy life, and in doing so, may terminate the fetus for no other reason other than the fact that they are personally incapable of recognizing the value of a life that is very different from theirs.

You're right, it is difficult to tell, but not impossible. Perhaps I should clarify, aborting is only permissible if you KNOW the child will be unhappy and miserable. Otherwise, its a risk you have to take.