As you see the logic in preventing a birth that could result in a deformed child, can you not see the logic from those of us who would protect a child from an upbringing that could result in damage?
I am all for banning child abuse if that's what you mean. There are great moral problems with banning more than that.
There are people who believe homeschooling is a form of child abuse. Homeschooling was illegal in several states until recently. Still illegal in some places in Europe.
There are people - I've met some - who believe growing up in a religious family is inherently abusive.
There are people who believe that growing up in a single-parent household is inherently abusive. Really, they exist.
Do you think we should take the children away from a mother if the father divorces her for some reason?
Seriously, how much interference should the government have in this?
Also, there are other questions.
I've read quotes from a German trial where the fact a daughter shared her parent's political beliefs was held up to be proof she was 'brainwashed' by her family.
If a lesbian woman gets artificial insemination, and her daughter ends up being a lesbian too, is that a form of abuse?
There's a difference between saying: "You're abusing the child - here, he has welts and a fractured arm, or is inadequately fed, and so forth" and saying "We want our children to all be like this, so we'll go in and legislatively define anything that's not like that as 'abuse'."
Where do we draw the line?