One for the unbelievers and not so sures

[trueblue1234]

Again you're using words like "misinterpreted" and going "out of my way to get offended". It's quite possible that I fully understand his view point, but just disagree with it. In particular this bit.

Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do.  I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare.

He is starting from a view point that having a Downs child is going to be a life of suffering. I totally disagree with this. And as this is the core element of his opinion, it's the reason I disagree with him. I'm not going out of my way to be offended, I'm just disagreeing with his views.

No, he is not saying having a down syndrome child IS going to be a life of suffering. He is making a hypothetical risk calculation about a foetus with an abnormality and deciding that from his definition of morality that it would be wrong not to abort at that point in time. You say in one hand you wouldn't dare judge someone who when faced with this dilemma had to make these sort of decisions. I don't understand why you don't grant him his right to give HIS OWN thinking if he was in that very situation. Remember HIS OWN opinion if he were in that position

Here is his own response to this point on that link above

Now to the upset itself. The haters came from various directions:-
.
.

Those who thought I was bossily telling a woman what to do rather than let her choose. Of course this was absolutely not my intention and I apologise if brevity made it look that way. My true intention was, as stated at length above, simply to say what I personally would do, based upon my own assessment of the pragmatics of the case, and my own moral philosophy which in turn is based on a desire to increase happiness and reduce suffering.
.
.
To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most us, I presume, espouse. My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand.

We're going round in circles. I'm not telling him he can't have that opinion. I'm saying I totally disagree with it. Therefore my opinion differs from his. I really don't know how much more I can add to that.