I can't access the link - it's asking me to sign in.
I assumed the controversy in question was whether you would completely eradicate Down's Syndrome if you could, without bringing abortion into the question.

I know this same issue came up about dwarfism before, and certain types of hereditary blindness.

I'd be for it. I don't agree that it is a gift, and if there is a way to prevent it occurring I would take it, personally. I sure there are many people with Down's who are happy, healthy and lead fulfilling lives. Probably more so than me. But if I could choose, I would never want to start a child in life with limits or disability. Then again, I don't want any children so perhaps my heartlessness takes me out of the equation.

Why isn't it good?

I think that the tests should be available, and I don't think it should be illegal to abort a fetus due to test results. After all, all families are different and not all would be able to care for a severely disabled child. For a poor family (who would currently be less likely to have access to prenatal testing), it can be devastating.

My mom is in a book club with a group of friends, many of whom met because their children go to the same school for mentally challenged kids. All of them love their kids, who range from completely autistic to slightly retarded, and are glad to have them despite their difficulties. However, all of these moms are successful career women and/or married to successful career men, live in some of the poshest neighborhoods in the area, and are able to send their kids to a special school and get them excellent medical care. I don't expect every family to be able to have the same success that they have.

A lot of people feel that the increase in human life spans is bad for the planet as a whole.

i didn't say it wasn't good, i was just curious about why you would assume it was.

personally i have no interest in extending the duration of my life. now if you can show me how to keep my body working the way it was at 29 for the 70 years then let's talk. I'd like that. But if everyone on the planet is doing the same thing we could run out of space pretty quickly.

With the overpopulation thing, it isn't so much of how many people there are or how they live, but how they live their lives. The world could potentially support a population twice the size it is now but we would collapse instantly if half the population lives at 1st world middle class standards.

then why would we even want to do something that would increase the population?

We don't, but when you talk about abortion at a personal level, overpopulation very rarely comes into the picture.

Only if everyone keeps having children at the same point in their lives. When the life expectancy was 40ish, people were getting married and having kids at 15 quite regularly. As life expectancy extends, the average age for a first child has continued to go up and up--and our expectations of maturity have delayed as well, which is disappointing to me. Time was when a 15-year-old was an adult, and expected to behave as one. Nowadays there are 22-year-olds who are still coddled by their parents and are years away from adulthood.

I agree with this. In some cases, genetic screening can change a child's life. A friend of mine found out that he and his wife were having a child with spina bifida. Because it was caught early, they were able to correct it in utero. Then there are children who are, say, hydroencephalatic. They're going to die, usually soon after birth. I wouldn't want my child to have a few hours of misery just to satisfy someone else's idea of morality.

Some people can deal with extreme birth defects. Some can't, for whatever reason: emotional, financial, whatever. Personally I don't like the use of abortion as birth control; I think adoption is a better choice. But I think that couples should have all the information they can get, for exactly the above reason: so that they can mentally prepare themselves to deal with it, or decide whether or not to choose another option.

Well then the world certainly cannot support twice the population can it?

If we build up like the Japanese.
TOKYO has 36 mil pplz!!!

Hell, Beijing has more people than the entire state of Alabama...

What?? Since when?

He's lying, he means the Greater Tokyo Metropolitan area. Or Largest Urban Agglomeration. But Tokyo is the biggest city by far.