Re the link - it's obviously a website design that has no clue how to create usable links. If you haven't done so already go to:
http://iccheshireonline.icnetwork.co.uk/
..and it's the 3rd story down.
Here are some BBC links about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2367917.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/3285601.stm
MO! - what's her "looking hot" got to do with anything?
For someone who once had a cleft palate (or something similar) she looks pretty OK to me.
Ian - I'm coming at this from the "designer baby" POV rather than the abortion one allthough I agree that anti-abortionists are using cases like this to bolster their argument :inferno:
It's not a "sanctity of life" issue for me, rather an issue of selfishness and abdication of responsibility. If two people deliberately go about conceiving a child then if they would be keen to have the child if it were healthy then they shouldn't be allowed to abort it just because it has some minor "defect" like a cleft palate. When you decide to create a child you don't get to add subsidiary clauses and small print to the effect of "but I only want it if it's healthy, male and with blue eyes". Assuming you'd be happy to raise a "normal" child then you have a responsibility to raise that child however it happens to turn out.
The issue it raises is that if all babies with cleft palates and other minor "defects" start to be aborted, what does that say to people alive who have those "defects" about the value of their life? Again, I realise this argument is one that pro-lifers ( :bub: ) use but it's not quite the same issue.
Either you want to have a baby (unconditionally), in which case you have it, or you (again unconditionally) don't want to have one, in which case you abort it. There should be no "well, I only want it if condition X".
Michael.