If you want to call it an error, or simply a change, I'm happy to make the argument on those terms. Changes in the development process that leave a child disabled for life, but which can be prevented, such as FAS through alcohol abstinence, spina bifida through folic acid intake, and (if this research can be translated into a treatment) Down Syndrome through the targeted removal of the superfluous chromosome, should be prevented. And don't tell me kids with these conditions aren't disabled, because that dog won't hunt.

None of your arguments fly. Try to think like an programmer--kick the corner case of the arguments. I'm not suggesting anything other than pointing out that most arguments on here have been well trodden by ethicists and even they have no consensus. My personal belief about the specific issue is not even relevant. My objection is the low quality of argument (by several commenters) demonstrating a kind of prejudiced take, I find that the most offensive.

Here you moved from defect to disabled. I don't have to personally say that a group are/aren't disabled, to yet again point out your argument rests on an assumed definition otherwise yet another form of word loading. This is a really basic critical thinking skills example independent of the topic.