So it's ok to cast judgements on the lives of people with disabilities "they're so tragic/no quality of life/not worth living/it's not fair to siblings/will be a burden on their family" shall I go on? 
Yet it's not ok to have any opinion on people who terminate a pregnancy where the condition is not incompatible with life that isn't sympathetic and understanding of the fact that they have somehow averted a tradgedy?
I wonder why that is.
Could it be, perhaps, that in many cases, people with severe disabilities often don't have the mental capacity to realise just how negative the world's perception is of them? Or to tell those that think their lives are so tragic that they are wrong? They cannot defend themselves against the alagations levelled at them, therefore it's ok to keep saying these things.
Whereas the woman who terminates a pregnancy because she didn't feel that she could cope with a "down's baby" can tell you how upset she is, how she did it for the child, after all, having down's is a tradgedy, is it not? And how dare anyone question someone's motives when they have lost a child. Even if that loss was of their own choosing.
It's easy to make your opinions known when those you are opinionating about do not have a voice. If they don't defend themselves, then surely that makes you right. Not so easy when that person can argue back.
Buzz you were quite clearly trying to point score off the back of someone's grief. It has been made very clear on this thread, time and time again that no-one was referring to conditions that are incompatible with life, and I imagine that anyone who has read this thread as nothing but sympathy for goingdownhill and others who have been in her position. Nobody has back-tracked, the thread was about down's, a condition that is not incompatible with life,clearly some were upset by it based on decisions they have been forced to make about babies who would not have survived anyway and people have sympathised with them for their loss.
It is entirely possible to sympathise with someone who loses a baby due to a condition that means that baby would not have survived while feeling that someone who terminates based on a condition where the baby not only has a good prognosis, but where there is a chance that baby will grow into an independent adult capable of holding dow a job and living independently of their parents. Even if that certainty is unknown at the time.
It is clearly you, Buzz, who is incapable of distinguishing between the two. And maybe that is a huge part of the problem ? for some, disability equals tradgedy. They cannot see past the disability to the person that is behind it, which is why it's so easy to categorise all disabled life into not worth living and worthy of termination.