thats a tough one to call
here are my questions on this. do you think it's "ok" to kill someone who's born disabled just because you see that as an unfit and undeserving life to live? should everyone have to meet a minimum criteria of normality or else be subject to arbitrary termination? Should he not have relinquished custody of his daughter to someone who would care for her instead of killing her? Particularly because she was going to have a surgery that would alleviate her hip displacement (and therefore her pain)? I mean, even if she was eventually going to die of the disease, shouldn't she have had the privilege to live out her days as they were numbered instead of having someone, her father and mother no less, decide how many she should live? I am blown away by the story. and the public reaction of support to the father when it was murder. she was just disabled. a beautiful girl, and probably very sweet. should we terminate mongoloid children because they clearly are similarly mentally incapacitated? or limbless ones? ones born with defects that land them permanently in institutions? what about the "invisible" defects. sociopaths, and so on. do we start screening babies, and mark their documentation somehow so if at some point their parents decide to kill them we don't interfere? what about people who are resuscitated and then are vegetables? or, severe quadriplegics? does the lack of physical bodily function despite an intact mind signify it's time to administer the poison or morphine? what about burn victims...there's a whole load of questions this opens up.
what i mean is that it would tough to call cause there would be pepole on both sides of the issue