Avoiding Pain

Today's Washington Post has a confession from a journalist who aborted her baby after learning that he had Down's Syndrome.  An excerpt:

While I have no doubt there can be joys and victories in raising a mentally handicapped child, for me and for Mike, it's a painful journey that we believe is better not taken. To know now that our son would be retarded, perhaps profoundly, gives us the choice of not continuing the pregnancy. We don't want a life like that for our child, and the added worry that we wouldn't be around long enough to care for him throughout his life.

Why is the journey better not taken?  Because it is painful?  Whose pain is motivating the decision -- the pain of the child or the pain of the parents? If the latter, the writer's angst is a thin disguise for selfishness.  If the former, who is she to presume that the child would decide that no life at all is preferable to a life with pain? Andrea Yates, after all, saved her children from the pain of growing up in a fallen world by drowning them in a bathtub.  Does the degree of pain accompanying Down's Syndrome make this a qualitatively different decision? 

Another gem:

I'm sure pro-lifers don't give you the right to grieve for the baby you chose not to bring into the world (another euphemism, although avoiding the word "abortion'' doesn't take any sting out of the decision to have one). Only now do I understand how entirely personal the decision to terminate a pregnancy is and how wrong it feels to bring someone else's morality into the discussion.

I think most pro-lifers would encourage the writer to grieve the baby's absence; but they would also point out that the grief should encompass the reason for the baby's absence.

Rob