Babies aborted for not being perfect - DailyMail

From the UK Daily Mail (via Drudge):

Babies aborted for not being perfect

The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show. Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.

A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.

Campaigners warned we are turning into a society that can no longer tolerate imperfection. Doctors were recently told they can now screen IVF embryos to try to weed out inherited cancers.

Ethical groups fear parents are opting for abortions because they are not told of the support and help available if they continued with the pregnancy.

Details of the terminations emerged as new figures revealed an alarming rise in the use of an abortion pill that has been linked to 10 deaths. [More...]

One line in particular got to me:

"Remarkable pictures recently have revealed how at just 23 weeks baby in the womb appears to smile, yawn and flinch in pain."

Why must the verb "appear" be used to qualify what a baby does in the womb (like "smiling, yawning and flinching in pain")? Oh that's right - because it's not human?!

Another nonsensical line:

"if, as a society, we are truly committed to equality for people with disabilities then such blatant discrimination against the disabled unborn must stop."

It's discrimination to kill a child with a disability, but "the parent's choice" when killing a healthy baby.

Update: the second quote, from a LIFE Charity member, I took out of context, as another Life Charity member was kind enough to inform me:

LIFE does not only oppose abortion for foetal handicap but abortion for any reason. LIFE is in complete agreement with your analysis of how inconsistent it is to merely oppose abortion for disability: It's discrimination to kill a child with a disability, but "the parent's choice" when killing a healthy baby. We do not advocate any choice that involves the destruction of innocent life from fertilization and believe that a truly civilised society recognizes the inviolability of each and every human being from the moment they are conceived.

More info on LIFE:

LIFE is the largest pro-life charity in the UK working hard to overturn the 1967 Abortion Act. I would warmly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the work of our charity (http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/).

Thank you for the correction. My point about the inconsistency still stands, but it was certainly not the point the LIFE member intended to make.