An oft-used argument for the pro-abortion crowd is that pregnant mothers bearing disabled or deformed children should not be forced to deal with such hardships as raising a handicapped child. But this argument has absolutely no logical case.
Saying that mothers of disabled children should be free to abort does nothing to prove that abortion is not the taking of an innocent life. In fact, this exact same line of thinking could be applied to already-born children. What is the difference between a mother discovering her 6-month-old fetus is disabled and a mother discovering her 1-month-old newborn is disabled? The argument for abortion of disabled fetuses has no answer.
If a mother has the right to abort her unborn disabled fetus, why can she not also do away with her newborn disabled baby?
Without even entering the moral realm, it is clear that the argument for abortion of disabled fetuses is invalid. Its only premise is that hardship should be avoided. The argument has absolutely nothing else to say. The ends justify the means, this argument claims, and thus whatever causes hardship must be done away with.
Clearly, the pro-abortion crowd has an illogical argument here, but then again, logic never was their strong suit.