"Your child, your choice"
This callous remark betrays your true colors, I'm afraid.
Very reminiscent of the ghoulish Professor Peter Singer of Princeton, who argues that parents should be free to kill their own children, up to some indeterminate age.
From a PBS interview with Peter Singer, conducted by Bob Abernathy:
BA: I suppose the idea and the thing that you have written that has provoked the most controversy -- at least . . . around here -- is the idea of it being all right under some circumstances to take the life of a newborn child. Would you say just as clearly and precisely as you possibly can what your position is on that?
PS: There are some disabled infants born with conditions so severe that doctors don't really try to keep them alive. They allow them to die essentially through benign neglect. But that can be a very slow process. In my view, if that decision is justified -- and I think it can be -- then with the consent and support of the parents -- and only then -- I think it would be justifiable to help that infant to die -- in other words, to take active steps to end that infant's life more swiftly and more humanely.
BA: You . . . said in a quote that has showed up in many places since that, "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." You want to expand on that a little bit here?
PS: Well as I used the term "person" -- a "person" is a being who is capable of anticipating a future, having wants and desires for the future, which are cut off, thwarted, if that person is killed. And I think that is generally a greater wrong than it is to kill a being who has no sense of existing over time. And that might be, for example, a chicken has no sense of existing over time. And that, I think, is one reason why it's normally worse to kill a human being than to kill a chicken. But also, of course, newborn babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So, it's not equivalent. Killing a newborn baby -- whether able-bodied or not -- I think, is never equivalent to killing a being who wants to go on living. It's different. It's still -- almost always wrong, but it's different, anyway. The cases where it's not wrong, I think, are those cases where the parents and doctors, in consultation to prevent the child from suffering from a severe disability, decide that that's the best thing for the child; that the child should not live. And then, I think, sometimes humanely killing the child is a kinder, more compassionate thing to do than allowing the child to waste away through a kind of benign neglect.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/transcripts/singer.html