It really is a terrible story. I tend to agree with Tanny, I have had so many ERPCs and I remember saying to my dad on the eve of the first one that I didn't know how someone could go into that operating room knowing that their baby was still alive and go through with a termination.
But since then I've lost a daughter to Turner's syndrome, which kills 97% of girls who have it (it's a missing chromosome) but 3% do survive and can live up to about 3 years of age (I think the oldest might have lived to 8). It really got me thinking about what I would (could) do if I knew that the baby had a life limiting condition. I don't consider Downs to be necessarily life limiting, I mean the kind of condition that leads to a painful death shortly after birth, like Anencephaly (where the brain or skull are seriously malformed or absent), or when another organ or body part is missing or seriously malformed (like the liver or diaphragm, which I have heard of happening). I really don't know what I would do, in that case. In a way, I was 'lucky' that my turner's baby died and I didn't have to make that choice, but I can't pass judgement on those who would terminate for those kinds of reasons.
Some also consider their existing DCs who they don't want to make 'carers' for the long term (although aren't we all carers in families at some point, so I have slightly less sympathy with that position).
The problem is that there is a slippery slope, and once you allow/permit some terminations, it can be seen as more difficult to draw the line. And no-one would want all the problems that go with back-street abortions etc.
Is scanning per se a good thing, since it gives us this kind of information on which to make these kinds of decisions? Female abortion (and abandonment and infanticide) are big problems in India and China because of the ability to scan the unborn. More and more 'defects' can be picked up on scans and tests, and there is an argument that, if you can prevent people from being born with these problems, you are doing them a favour. But if this is used to justify terminations for cosmetic or 'non-life limiting' conditions, or even gender, have we abused the technology? If so, ought it be used at all? So, 'Boo' to scans!
Conversely, we are the recipients of reassurance scans, which Prof Regan and others do say helps with preventing MC, because TLC of RMC sufferers does seem to have a positive impact, anecdotally, at least. So, 'Yay' to scans!
Some Christians (and I am sure other faiths and Humanists, and atheists - should have just said people...) such as Joanna Jepson argue that, if we select for perfection in the womb, we are sending a message to the living disabled that they are 'worth less' than 'normal' people. (I hesitate to use the word 'normal', as, really, who is 'normal' anyway?)
The fact remains that people make choices based on their personal circumstances at the time. Sometimes they are selfish, and sometimes they are frightened and oftentimes they are wrong in our eyes. But I can only look after my own moral choices, and, since I can't say what I would do in any given situation, it is hard for me to condemn others.
I would agree, however, that, on the face of it, this Australian couple appear to have made a selfish choice, which I would like to hope that I would not have made.