In today's Guardian (I guess I can't post the link, but can be found at guardian dot co dot uk)

Pro-choice taboo
It doesn't make you a eugenicist to speak up for the right to abort a foetus that may have Down's

By Zoe Williams
This week it was shown that there were more children born in the United Kingdom last year with Down's syndrome than there were before the introduction of universal testing, 20 years ago. One of the reasons is more obvious than the other - fertility among women in their 30s outstripped that of those in their 20s for the first time in the UK during 2005. Mothers are getting older and that trend is continuing; with it the incidence of Down's syndrome increases. The more surprising aspect, I find, is that 40% of women who have a Down's syndrome baby having been advised of that strong possibility during pregnancy didn't believe the test results.

My worry is this: that the discursive space around the issue is taken up with pro-lifers rejoicing in this selfless social direction. Pro-choicers are silent on the matter. And yet 94% of people will abort when told that a foetus probably has the condition. This silence is turning these abortions into a dirty secret. This can't be allowed to happen - they are either defensible or they aren't.

The taboo is even more marked in the case of aborting for birth defects than it is with terminations generally. First off, you talk about "defects" and very soon the word "eugenics" is used, and images of Nazis spring up. Second, there is an unavoidable inference that if you are in favour of aborting Down's syndrome foetuses, you must therefore think that people with Down's syndrome are worthless. Why would you take such an unkind position?

Well, first of all, it's nothing to do with eugenics. Nobody aborts a Down's syndrome foetus because they want to create a society of perfect people. I also think that you would struggle to make the case that parents do it for their own convenience. They do it because they don't believe that life is so precious that it is worth it at any price. If you are pro-choice, you do not see the right to life as a trump card that obviates all other considerations. You ask questions about quality of life, and you bring to those questions your assessment of your own life.

Which brings us to point two: the argument for termination always falls silent in the face of people saying how happy Down's syndrome children are, how much joy they bring to their families and communities, how much greater are their opportunities these days - because people were prepared to have them and fight for them.

However, you don't have to dispute any of that to support a parent's decision in favour of termination. I am pro-abortion generally for women who get pregnant by accident and are not in a relationship - or at least not one that they want to stay in - and don't want to have a child on their own. That doesn't mean I think children of single mothers are worthless, that I wish they didn't exist, that I don't believe they bring anything to society. I deride the idea of adoption as a humane and viable alternative to abortion, but that doesn't mean I wish adopted people dead. I wouldn't in a million years judge a foetus on what it's going to bring to society, nor what it will cost. I don't believe doctors do either.

But nor would I judge a parent who decided against having a baby with Down's syndrome. You might conceive children for your own pleasure, but once they are out, parents are just there to marshal children to their own life, hoping that it's one of more pleasure than pain. If you think that you can do this under any conditions, that's a point of view; but if you think you can't, that is not a selfish attitude, and nor is it shaming, nor reckless, nor spineless. It's a mature decision, based on an even-eyed view of the world and life in it, and one that any pro-choicer should be proud to defend.