Are we talking infanticide here?
There's a story of a horrible case in Texas which, I'm sure, repeats itself all over the country each day: 6-month-old child abused by his parents. And terribly abused: "A physician noted that David Coronado Jr. had 42 skeletal injuries." So, a court-appointed guardian has asked that he be removed from life support because it's "in his best interests". His parents don't agree, but I think they forfeited their rights somewhere before the broken bone count reached 42. Anyway, the AP article makes a really odd reference: "If he survives his injuries, he will have severe and permanent disability as a result of these injuries," a doctor wrote in one report, the newspaper said. So, because the child will be disabled, we should kill him now? I understand the notion of removing life support if there's no hope of living... but isn't the act of removing life support because of future disabilities akin to an abortion about 7 months too la