People should have free-will to decide what does this mean for them and their children – for children are (for good or bad) bound to their parents opinions. Any interference is unacceptable in a democratic country – even if it is from a religious perspective (and, then again, religion is just another set of beliefs, and we are free to believe).

I try to see this beyong taboo and prejudice. There is no point in bringing to life a kid with severe psychological disorders, or keeping alive someone in permanent coma. As a father, I would want my children to have the best genes as possible.

But to turn your question back on you, is it prejudicial to people with disabilities to want to make disabilities less likely to occur? Is recognising that their condition causes difficulties that the rest of us are fortunate enough not to face in our day-to-day lives, and thinking that less people living under such unchosen restraints would be for a greater utilitarian good, inherently insulting to them? How is that different to providing wheelchairs or live-in care (or whatever else) to give them the best opportunities to enjoy their lives? These are genuine questions, by the way; ethics being what it is, the logic is clear to me, but I recognise that it works differently for others and I’d be interested to understand your train of thought.

Do people with Down’s Syndrome not have a high quality of life? Isn’t quality of life subjective? By imposing your own qualifications for such a subjective thing onto others your crossing into the territory of cultural superiority.