In making the case that aborting babies with genetic disorders amounts to eugenics, Ross Douthat writes:
Ezra writes that it's "very unfair" to apply the word "eugenics" to, say, the contemporary trend toward the elimination of Down's Syndrome by selective abortion, because "traditionally, the term has been used to denote efforts to direct or encourage breeding by high status, socially dominant individuals in order to select for their characteristics, and discourage breeding by low status individuals (criminals, the insane, blacks, etc) in order to wipe their characteristics from the gene pool. For Ross to conflate that with parents who decide to abort infants with medically disastrous genetic mutations is a real stretch."
First of all, Down's Syndrome is not a "medically disastrous" genetic mutation, unless you take an extremely broad definition of the term "disastrous."
Between the amount of money spent on supervisory care for a baby with Down Syndrome, the amount of money spent on associated medical ailments for a baby with Down Syndrome, the extreme mental retardation and physical disabilities of a baby with Down syndrome, and the very early deaths of a very large percentage of people with Down syndrome, I'd say that Down Syndrome is extraordinarily medically disastrous unless you're very heavily invested in the idea that aborting a baby with Down Syndrome constitutes a type of eugenics.