AP's Anti-Abortion violence timeline

[Pyperkub]

I saw this, and at least a part of me thinks that the ratcheting up of the rhetoric on the right when it is out of power may actually have an effect on the nutcases on the fringe:

A look at recent cases of abortion-related violence:

_ May 31, 2009: Prominent late-term abortion provider George Tiller is shot and killed in a Wichita church where he was serving as an usher. The gunman fled but a city official said a suspect is in custody.

_ April 2007: Authorities say Paul Ross Evans placed a homemade bomb in the parking lot of the Austin Women's Health Center in Texas. A bomb squad disposes of the device, which contained two pounds of nails. There are no injuries.

_ Oct. 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian is fatally shot in his home in a suburb of Buffalo, N.Y. Militant abortion opponent James Kopp is convicted of the murder in 2003 and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

_ Jan. 29, 1998: A bomb explodes just outside a Birmingham, Ala., abortion clinic, killing a police officer and wounding several others. Eric Rudolph later pleads guilty to that incident and the deadly bombing at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. He justifies the Alabama bombing in an essay from prison, writing that Jesus would condone "militant action in defense of the innocent."

_ Jan. 16, 1997: Two bomb blasts an hour apart rock an Atlanta building containing an abortion clinic. Seven people are injured. Rudolph is charged by federal authorities in October 1998.

_ Dec. 30, 1994: John Salvi opens fire with a rifle inside two Boston-area abortion clinics, killing two receptionists and wounding five others. Sentenced to life without parole, he kills himself in prison in 1996.

_ Nov. 8, 1994: Dr. Garson Romalis, who performs abortions in Vancouver, Canada, is shot in the leg while eating breakfast at home.

_ July 29, 1994: Dr. John Bayard Britton and his volunteer escort, James H. Barrett, are slain outside a Pensacola, Fla., abortion clinic. Barrett's wife, June, is wounded in the attack. Paul J. Hill, 40, a former minister and anti-abortion activist, is later convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

_ Aug. 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller is shot in the arms as he drives out of parking lot at his Wichita, Kan., clinic. Rachelle "Shelley" Shannon is later convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

_ March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn is shot to death outside Pensacola, Fla., clinic, becoming the first U.S. doctor killed during an anti-abortion demonstration. Michael Griffin is convicted and serving a life sentence.

Really not enough data to draw a conclusion, but definitely enough to warrant a deeper look by someone (not me).

[YellowKing]

My mother-in-law called my wife today laughing with glee about the "baby killer" who "got what he deserved."

[Fireball]

Seems to me that this murder is precisely the sort of thing that the DHS report on right-wing extremist groups within the United States was trying to warn us about. Good thing people took that report seriously and considered its merits on the basis of its arguments, and didn't just freak out and accuse the White House of non-existent bias.

[SpaceLord]

My mother-in-law called my wife today laughing with glee about the "baby killer" who "got what he deserved."

So, exactly what "inerrant word of god" basis do anti-abortionists use to justify being so angry?

[LawBeefaroni]

_ May 31, 2009: Prominent late-term abortion provider George Tiller is shot and killed in a Wichita church where he was serving as an usher. The gunman fled but a city official said a suspect is in custody.

_ Aug. 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller is shot in the arms as he drives out of parking lot at his Wichita, Kan., clinic. Rachelle "Shelley" Shannon is later convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

I assume it's the same guy?

[Exodor]

I assume it's the same guy?

Same guy.

I'm sure anti-abortion extremists rationalize this by telling themselves that murder in defense of the unborn is justified.


<Insert the huge rollyeyes puking smaller rollyeyes here.>

[LawBeefaroni]

I assume it's the same guy?

Same guy.

I'm sure anti-abortion extremists rationalize this by telling themselves that murder in defense of the unborn is justified.

If they don't like the laws, they are free to vote, protest, and/or leave the country (there are theocracies out there for them, Iran for example). They are not free to shoot someone.

Doesn't this count as terrorism?

[Fireball]

I assume it's the same guy?

Same guy.

I'm sure anti-abortion extremists rationalize this by telling themselves that murder in defense of the unborn is justified.

If they don't like the laws, they are free to vote, protest, and/or leave the country (there are theocracies out there for them, Iran for example). They are not free to shoot someone.

Doesn't this count as terrorism?

Absolutely not. Only brown people do terrorism.

[Two Sheds]

Jesus would condone militant action in defense of the innocent.

Wait, what?

Seriously, fuck anybody who plants a bomb or shoots somebody instead of engaging in the political process when they live in a country (such as the U.S. of A) in which they can do so. The shootings are iffy (to me), but if planting a bomb at a clinic isn't domestic terrorism then I'm unclear on the concept.

[silverjon]

How exactly is bombing or opening fire in a clinic guaranteed to not potentially target the unborn? Or is that deemed an acceptable loss in the face of their greater goal?

(Nooo, I'm not *really* trying to apply logic here.)

[YellowKing]

So, exactly what "inerrant word of god" basis do anti-abortionists use to justify being so angry?

Well, my wife got in a pretty heated argument with her mom over it (for the record, my wife is vehemently pro-life, but is also sane and rational). While she agreed that the guy was a scumbag who practiced in a really gray ethical area, that didn't make him deserving of being murdered. Her mom accused her of "defending a baby killer" and hung up on her.

That's the kind of person my mother-in-law is though. Everything is black or white. Either it's the right thing or the wrong thing. The right way to do something, or the wrong way to do something. And of course, everything she believes or does is right, and anything contrary to that is wrong. It's not just with controversial subjects and politics - it goes all the way down to how to cook biscuits or fold laundry.

[LawBeefaroni]

That's the kind of person my mother-in-law is though. Everything is black or white. Either it's the right thing or the wrong thing. The right way to do something, or the wrong way to do something. And of course, everything she believes or does is right, and anything contrary to that is wrong. It's not just with controversial subjects and politics - it goes all the way down to how to cook biscuits or fold laundry.

It doesn't sound like she's black and white on the whole murder thing though.

[YellowKing]

Well, I've never bought the argument that you can't be pro-death penalty and pro-life at the same time. A lot of pro-choice people use that as their go-to argument, but I don't think it holds water at all.

There's a big moral difference between killing a convicted murderer for his crimes and killing an innocent child, just as there's a big moral difference between a soldier killing an enemy combatant in a war overseas versus shooting some random bystander in cold blood here at home.

That's the stance my mother-in-law is coming from, though obviously she's on the extreme fringes of that stance.

[Two Sheds]

It's not, though. I'm not trying to jump on your mother in law (this time! HA!), but you were careful to put the word "convicted" in there. This isn't a convicted murderer being executed, this is a free man being shot to death in his church because somebody didn't like what he did. That's not even close to the same thing.

You can be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but I don't think you can rationally be pro-life and pro-murder.

[msduncan]

I just love the inevitable and predictable posts that equate this guy (who had a history of aggression and lawless behavior toward abortion clinics) to the rest of the pro-life movement.

Lots of inferring that the pro-life movement is somehow domestic terror. Note: Terrorists have some sort of (at least) loosely organized purpose to attack whatever it is they are against. These attacks aimed at abortion docs/clinics/supporters have been several lone-wolf fanatics that are nothing more than murderers trying to take what they believe to be the moral responsibility into their own hands.

And of course there are the sideways remarks and linking to religion. Also a load of crap.

So yes... this guy is a murderer who should get the chair/needle/gas/firing squad, but let's not condemn the pro-life position for acts that literally a handful of people have carried out independent of one another over the last two decades.

[msduncan]

My mother-in-law called my wife today laughing with glee about the "baby killer" who "got what he deserved."

So, exactly what "inerrant word of god" basis do anti-abortionists use to justify being so angry?

Not everyone that is ant-abortion is religious.

[Two Sheds]

My mother-in-law called my wife today laughing with glee about the "baby killer" who "got what he deserved."

So, exactly what "inerrant word of god" basis do anti-abortionists use to justify being so angry?

Not everyone that is ant-abortion is religious.

No.

I actually agree with you: I don't think anybody is condemning the entire movement based on one person's (or a handful of people's) actions. At the same time, you can't completely divorce these people from the movement that they support, and fringe elements of which support and foster them.

Edit: And don't give me the isolated-incidents, independent-psychos thing. These people are not officially (or even unofficially) supported or approved-of by the pro-life movement at large, but when outspoken pro-lifers act like YK's mother-in-law they're not exactly discouraged.

[gameoverman]

On the pro-life/pro-death penalty thing:

For me, if I use that, it's only because the pro-life person has invoked the "human life is sacred and must be protected" card to warrant intrusion into women/doctor medical decisions.

If that's the case, then you can't be in favor of the death penalty. Because if you are in favor of the death penalty you'd be saying "human life is sacred...except when I say it's not".

Well, if that's the case, then we are just talking about justifications aren't we? I can justify executing this murderer, therefore that's okay.

Well, other people can justify an abortion, so it should be okay too, shouldn't it?

Unless the claim is that one person's justifications somehow are more valid than the other person's.

Same with the military. Maybe it's just me being crazy, but I don't see how on one hand people can be supportive of military actions that they KNOW result in innocents(including children) being killed, but then protest against abortions because they think it's wrong to kill a 'baby'.

It seems to me that if you support military action, as a undesirable but sometimes necessary activity, you agree that there are times it's acceptable to terminate life- ALL life(young/old/sick/healthy/innocent/guilty/etc).

This is why people still claim that dropping Abombs on civilian cities to end WWII was okay, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, right? So how is abortion different?

[LawBeefaroni]

I just love the inevitable and predictable posts that equate this guy (who had a history of aggression and lawless behavior toward abortion clinics) to the rest of the pro-life movement.

I've seen the word "extremist" used to describe this guy. No one has said that he represents the main-stream "pro-life" movement. Although you might be surprised how many "mainstream" pro-lifers are sympathetic to such actions.

Lots of inferring that the pro-life movement is somehow domestic terror. Note: Terrorists have some sort of (at least) loosely organized purpose to attack whatever it is they are against. These attacks aimed at abortion docs/clinics/supporters have been several lone-wolf fanatics that are nothing more than murderers trying to take what they believe to be the moral responsibility into their own hands.

Really? The Nuremberg Files? What about the cult status that Eric Rudolph achieved? The Army of God [NSFW]? That's off the top of my head. I'm not going to go digging around right now but there are plenty more examples of organized groups promoting violence.

And of course there are the sideways remarks and linking to religion. Also a load of crap.

So yes... this guy is a murderer who should get the chair/needle/gas/firing squad, but let's not condemn the pro-life position for acts that literally a handful of people have carried out independent of one another over the last two decades.

I'll give you the religion thing, although the links do arise because offenders often justify their actions with their religion, however twisted their take on religion may be. But let's not ignore those that contribute direct support. There are organized networks and these are terrorists. Not because they oppose abortion but because they plant bombs and shoot doctors.

[YellowKing]

You can be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but I don't think you can rationally be pro-life and pro-murder.

Oh I agree, I'm just saying that my MIL is willing to accept that apparent contradiction by equating this to "justifiable" (killing a baby killer) versus non-justifiable (abortion). It doesn't make sense to rational people, but then again I've never though of her as rational.

This is why people still claim that dropping Abombs on civilian cities to end WWII was okay, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, right? So how is abortion different?

Most pro-lifers don't believe abortion is something you "gotta do." They don't see any justification for it.

Personally I consider myself pro-life, with the caveat that I don't believe it is feasible to make abortion illegal. I accept it as an unfortunately necessary evil because humans by nature are too stupid/irresponsible to accept responsibility for their own actions. With the trouble my wife and I had getting pregnant and the absolute blessing we feel it is, it makes me sad and disgusted that there are people out there who think of it as a nuisance and get rid of it as casually as getting rid of the flu.

I think this particular abortion doctor was a despicable human being (he was charged, though not convicted, of skirting the law in order to perform late-term abortions in cases where there was no threat to the mother on viable fetuses). However, we don't live in a world where vigilante justice is an acceptable course of action, particularly in cases where by law no crime was committed.

[Rip]

Seems to me that this murder is precisely the sort of thing that the DHS report on right-wing extremist groups within the United States was trying to warn us about. Good thing people took that report seriously and considered its merits on the basis of its arguments, and didn't just freak out and accuse the White House of non-existent bias.

If we are doing that then we better put the left-wing extremist groups on there as well..

ITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A man with "political and religious motives" killed a soldier just out of basic training and wounded another Monday in a targeted attack on a military recruiting center, police said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld ... 3488.story

[LawBeefaroni]

It's not about left-right. Does everything come down to left v. right? Goddamn, sometimes I wonder how Americans manage to evacuate burning buildings, what with all the finger pointing and left/right blame that probably goes on as soon as flames are sighted.

That said, there is little to indicate any particular political motivation in the completely unrelated shooting:

A police report based on an interview with the suspect says Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, told police he observed two soldiers in uniform, drove up to the recruiting center and started shooting.

"He saw them standing there and drove up and shot them," Lt. Terry Hastings told The Associated Press. "That's what he said."

Oh, and Muhammad is getting hit with charges of committing "terrorist acts." So targeted shootings do appear to qualify.

[Rip]

It's not about left-right. Does everything come down to left v. right? Goddamn, sometimes I wonder how Americans manage to evacuate burning buildings, what with all the finger pointing and left/right blame that probably goes on as soon as flames are sighted.

That said, there is little to indicate any particular political motivation in the completely unrelated shooting:

A police report based on an interview with the suspect says Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, told police he observed two soldiers in uniform, drove up to the recruiting center and started shooting.

"He saw them standing there and drove up and shot them," Lt. Terry Hastings told The Associated Press. "That's what he said."

Oh, and Muhammad is getting hit with charges of committing "terrorist acts." So targeted shootings do appear to qualify.

I was actually just trying to refute Fireball's contention that this means the baloney DHS report on "right-wing extremists" was well founded. Their are extremists on the left and right and there exists no evidence that one or the other is more or less likely to resort to lawlessness and violence to achieve their goals. There is no way to justify government agencies investigating and suggesting that one is more of a threat than the other.

[Isgrimnur]

That may be, but it certainly wouldn't be a helpful report if you tried to lump all of your reports on the opposite extremes of the political spectrum. There may be commonalities, and there certainly should be a report on left-wing extremists as well, but they both shouldn't be in the same report.

[ChrisGrenard]

With relation to the Rip thing:

I really honestly don't think you could find more than 1% of the population (if even close to that) that are actually anti-military. I mean like, "I hate them people in the military!" sorta people. I know personally that I'm super left wing and I have a great many friends who have or are serving.

Thus, the shooting of a military soldier by a "left wing" person isn't even close to describing the left-wingers.

On the other hand, the anti-abortion movement is, what.... 30%? Maybe at a minimum 20%? It's not a small thing. And when you have "spokesmen" like Billo who repeatedly campaign against the dude it's not really surprising that he's gonna get shot.

So while I don't think anybody would say that *either* action is really excusable, it really isn't equivalent because the right-wing anti-abortion movement is so much more open and accepted.

[Isgrimnur]

Courtesy of Angela Gunn's Twitter:

How I (and Other "Pro-Life" Leaders) Contributed to Dr. Tiller's Murder by Frank Schaeffer on HuffPo.

[Alefroth]

I just love the inevitable and predictable posts that equate this guy (who had a history of aggression and lawless behavior toward abortion clinics) to the rest of the pro-life movement.

Maybe if they were to denounce it more.

Ale

[Isgrimnur]

It doesn't help win any moderates when the head of Operation Rescue states that they are not responsible for his death and with his next breath, blames the victim, saying that he "reaped what he sowed."

You demonize a person, call him a mass murderer, a villain of history (which I would assume would include all the really successful despots), you make it easy for someone who is a true believe to decide that removing that person is what you actually want them to do.

[Victoria Raverna]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/6/1/05557/09911" target="_blank

Admission Criteria
In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter's syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.

Doesn't seem like a mass murderer's clinic.

[Victoria Raverna]

Confession of a mass murderer:

http://www.prch.org/george-r-tiller-md" target="_blank

[Peacedog]

I'm anti baby.

[msduncan]

Personally I consider myself pro-life, with the caveat that I don't believe it is feasible to make abortion illegal. I accept it as an unfortunately necessary evil because humans by nature are too stupid/irresponsible to accept responsibility for their own actions.

And my position is not at all formed against a religious backdrop. I feel like these unborn babies are human beings, and Americans.... they should be afforded the same protection other citizens are afforded. Just because they are attached to an umbilical cord to the mother does NOT make that child a part of the mother and so able to be removed or shed. This whole notion of 'it's MY body' is thus bogus in my opinion.... there are two bodies here... the mother's and the child's.

If there is threat to the mother's health? Just as self defense is a valid reason to kill another human being, so should that standard be applied for mothers and their unborn.

That's my position. Obviously the court's don't agree so I'll have to live with that.

[Alefroth]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/6/1/05557/09911

Admission Criteria
In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter's syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.

Doesn't seem like a mass murderer's clinic.

Maybe just a eugenics clinic.

Ale

[Dan_Theman]

MSD's position is pretty close to mine. I just throw in the notion that none of us can adequately say when life begins, and therefore I believe in erring on the side of caution. I also understand that due to the shaky attempts at definition, it is difficult to get the courts/much of the population to agree with erring on one side or another - people want, if not need, to cling to definitions when it comes to making laws against something like this. As such, I understand and respect that abortion will continue to be legal until some point of enlightenment is acheived that will allow us to provide the definitive answer as to when human life begins. Until then, I'm against abortion except in cases of the mother's health (for the same reason MSD noted).

When it comes to extremists such as the guy who shot the doctor, I can understand where the underlying cause of action comes from - if he firmly believes these are defenseless babies then from his perspective he would be the lone warrior in a fight to defend innocents who can't stand up for themselves. That's pretty noble sounding. Of course, that requires a wee bit of a departure from reality in order for it to hold water. He deserves to be thrown in jail for life, and society needs to be protected from someone like that.

As an aside, it strikes me as odd that every slain doctor on that list is a man. There were six, all men. I know that the vast majority of doctors once upon a time were male, but that hasn't been the case for many years (there's still a majority, but significantly lower). That juxtaposition of ratios makes me wonder about the psychological makeup of the killers.

[Isgrimnur]

So would you condemn the child to a life of pain and suffering for a genetic defect that was identifiable in utero? I have not researched all of the abnormalities above, but some of them are guaranteed to be fatal. Others mean that there will be significant abnormalities and that the child will never be able to lead a normal life.

[silverjon]

As an aside, it strikes me as odd that every slain doctor on that list is a man. There were six, all men. I know that the vast majority of doctors once upon a time were male, but that hasn't been the case for many years (there's still a majority, but significantly lower). That juxtaposition of ratios makes me wonder about the psychological makeup of the killers.

In my filing cabinet at home, there's an article, some years dated now, that indicated that the vast majority of doctors in the US who would perform abortions were old enough to actually have been practicing when Roe v. Wade came about. That potentially puts a different spin on the gender makeup.

[LawBeefaroni]

So would you condemn the child to a life of pain and suffering for a genetic defect that was identifiable in utero? I have not researched all of the abnormalities above, but some of them are guaranteed to be fatal. Others mean that there will be significant abnormalities and that the child will never be able to lead a normal life.

Anencephaly is particluarly nasty. Not sure about the rest.

[msduncan]

So would you condemn the child to a life of pain and suffering for a genetic defect that was identifiable in utero? I have not researched all of the abnormalities above, but some of them are guaranteed to be fatal. Others mean that there will be significant abnormalities and that the child will never be able to lead a normal life.

Define 'normal'?

Example: You know that genetic disease that causes kids to age rapidly and live only into their early teens before death? If you ask those kids if they'd rather have not been born, the answer would be NO... they would have wanted to exist... to fight... to live if even for a short while.

I don't think (and of course this is just my opinion) that it's the mother's business to decide life or death once another human being has been created --- again unless that child poses a risk to her. It was the mother's decision whether or not to have sex, whether or not to use protection, and whether or not to risk their child being born with flaws. Once that child has been created by the parents... I believe (again only my opinion) that it should be afforded human rights.

[Isgrimnur]

I now know more than I want to about these things. Here are the Cliff Notes, sourced from Wiki. I wouldn't wish any of these on the children of my worst enemy, much less myself and my (future) wife.

anencephaly

Spoiler:

Children with this disorder are born without a forebrain, the largest part of the brain consisting mainly of the cerebral hemispheres (which include the isocortex, which is responsible for higher level cognition, i.e., thinking). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed—not covered by bone or skin.

Trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome)

Spoiler:

mental & motor challenged
polydactyly (extra digits)
microcephaly - In general, life expectancy for individuals with microcephaly is reduced and the prognosis for normal brain function is poor.
heart defects

Trisomy 18 (Edwards Syndrome)

Spoiler:

The survival rate of Edwards Syndrome is very low. About 95% die in utero. Of liveborn infants, only 50% live to 2 months, and only 5–10% will survive their first year of life. Major causes of death include apnea and heart abnormalities. It is impossible to predict the exact prognosis of an Edwards Syndrome child during pregnancy or the neonatal period.

Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome)

Spoiler:

Individuals with Down syndrome tend to have a lower than average cognitive ability, often ranging from mild to moderate developmental disabilities. A small number have severe to profound mental disability.

polycystic kidney disease

Spoiler:

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is generally a late-onset disorder characterized by progressive cyst development and bilaterally enlarged kidneys with multiple cysts. It is a genetic disorder resulting from mutations in either the PKD-1 or PKD-2 gene. Cyst formation begins in the womb
...
Autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease (ARPKD) is much rarer than ADPKD and is often fatal in utero or during the first month of life.

spina bifida

Spoiler:

Spina bifida (Latin: "split spine") is a developmental birth defect involving the neural tube: incomplete closure of the embryonic neural tube results in an incompletely formed spinal cord. In addition, the vertebrae overlying the open portion of the spinal cord may not fully form and remain unfused and open. This allows the abnormal portion of the spinal cord to stick out through the opening in the bones.
...
Spina bifida can be surgically closed after birth, but nerve damage is permanent and this does not restore normal function to the affected part of the spinal cord. An individual with this condition will have dysfunction of the spinal cord and associated nerves from the point of the open defect and below.

hydrocephalus

Spoiler:

People with hydrocephalus have abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the ventricles, or cavities, of the brain.
...
Fetuses, infants, and young children with hydrocephalus typically have an abnormally large head, excluding the face, because the pressure of the fluid causes the individual skull bones — which have yet to fuse — to bulge outward at their juncture points. Another medical sign, in infants, is a characteristic fixed downward gaze with whites of the eyes showing above the iris, as though the infant were trying to examine its own lower eyelids. Hydrocephalus occurs in about one out of every 1000 live births and was routinely fatal until surgical techniques for shunting the excess fluid out of the central nervous system and into the blood or abdomen were developed. Hydrocephalus is detectable during prenatal ultrasound examinations.

Potter's syndrome

Spoiler:

the typical physical appearances of a fetus or neonate due to oligohydramnios experienced in the womb.[1] Oligohydramnios is the decrease in amniotic fluid volume sufficient to cause disruptions in morphogenesis of the fetus.
...
In recorded medical and research history BRA has proved to be 100% lethal in all cases of singleton births. Various other forms of the sequence are, or are near, 100% lethal.

lethal dwarfism

Spoiler:

I think the name speaks for itself on this one ... and I can't find a specific source.

holoprosencephaly - this one can be fatal at higher degrees.

Spoiler:

disorder characterized by the failure of the prosencephalon (the forebrain of the embryo) to develop.
...
causing defects in the development of the face and in brain structure and function.

anterior and posterior encephalocele

Spoiler:

Encephalocele, sometimes known by the Latin name cranium bifidum, is a neural tube defect characterized by sac-like protrusions of the brain and the membranes that cover it through openings in the skull. These defects are caused by failure of the neural tube to close completely during fetal development.
...
Currently, the only effective treatments are reparative surgeries following birth. The degree to which they can be corrected varies greatly on where and how big the encephalocele is.

non-immune hydrops

Spoiler:

Hydrops fetalis is a condition in the fetus characterized by an accumulation of fluid, or edema, in at least two fetal compartments, including the subcutaneous tissue, pleura, pericardium, or in the abdomen, which is also known as ascites. The edema is usually seen in the fetal subcutaneous tissue, sometimes leading to spontaneous abortion. It is a prenatal form of heart failure, in which the heart is unable to satisfy its demand for an high amount of blood flow.

[LawBeefaroni]

Example: You know that genetic disease that causes kids to age rapidly and live only into their early teens before death? If you ask those kids if they'd rather have not been born, the answer would be NO... they would have wanted to exist... to fight... to live if even for a short while.

I don't think (and of course this is just my opinion) that it's the mother's business to decide life or death once another human being has been created --- again unless that child poses a risk to her. It was the mother's decision whether or not to have sex, whether or not to use protection, and whether or not to risk their child being born with flaws.

I'll grant you some cases. But all cases? No.

Anencephaly:

The prognosis for babies born with anencephaly is extremely poor. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth.

Children with this disorder are born without a forebrain, the largest part of the brain consisting mainly of the cerebral hemispheres (which include the isocortex, which is responsible for higher level cognition, i.e., thinking). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed—not covered by bone or skin.
...
In almost all cases anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated since there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence. Instead, the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition and comfort measures and to "let nature take its course". Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as futile efforts. Clinicians and medical ethicists may view the provision of nutrition and hydration as medically futile.

Ignoring the theological/philosophical debate about whether 1 hour in agony is better than no time at all, these poor babies can't want anything, to exist or otherwise.