The ontological line between ‘born’ and ‘unborn’ is entirely arbitrary. If this argument rests upon the premise that parents should not be required to bear the burden of disabled children, then the argument justifies more than abortion. It justifies infanticide as well. For what if the condition is missed by the doctor? The parents could rightly say “We would have aborted if only we had known! It is not right that we be required to carry this burden involuntarily.” That arbitrary thin line which legally separates abortion from murder will not hold for long.
This attitude stems from one of the most pernicious presumptions of western man - that the purpose of life is to be ‘happy.’ The questions arise: “How can we fulfill our purpose in life if we can never escape the drudgery of caring for the needs of another; caring for one who will never have the capacity to materially repay the cost of silently carrying the load. And how can we continue on when the unfairness of it all is so visible; when we see others around us who have no such burden?” And always the question is asked by those who require no such care; who expect to never require such care. Woe unto them when they themselves need it.
The question of unequal burden is a question only God can answer. We have no proper recourse but to submit and do the work He requires, trusting that He does not require things without purpose. But we know that happiness is not His priority for man. I cannot imagine a more self-centered purpose in life than happiness. It is the very essence of pleasing the self, and a Christian should have no part in it. For us the purpose of life is not found in happiness, but elsewhere.Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
I don’t see much about temporal happiness in that statement.