This is such an awful policy to me, which probably reveals my blue tribe bias. The IQ of an individual with Down's syndrome is in the same range as that of Orangutans under most estimates. They live shortened, stunted lives, devoid of much of what we would consider humanity. A second cousin (from the distant Catholic side of my father's family) has downs. I rarely feel gut wrenching emotion, but I can't help but feel it for him, now in his late thirties, much the same way he was decades ago, an immense burden on his elderly parents, whose sister has her own family and children to worry about as well as him.

I can't help but feel Downs is a tragedy for all involved. No one benefits from it - everyone suffers, the individual in question (the painting of some people of people with downs as perpetually happy, like well cared for eternal children, is deeply flawed and very much annoys me), their family upon which has been placed a burden I would not wish upon anyone (especially the parents as they grow old), and the state, its employees and, more selfishly, the taxpayer, who must expend vast amounts of time, money and emotional labor on a situation that modern medicine has rendered totally and absolutely unnecessary.

The ability to reduce unnecessary suffering is an immense gift. Lord knows as a meat eating omnivore who gives less than I might to charity I'm far from Singer's ideal. But this seems an easy win to me. I understand the court's motives. But I will never see this as less than the state (especially in a country with a less developed safety net for the disabled than many other wealthy nations) foisting immense suffering on individuals.