It's a fascinating question. Would a mother with a congenital anomaly abort her baby if the baby had the same congenital anomaly? It raises the issue of why parents abort babies who have problems such as spina bifida, Trisomy 21, or other birth defects. I remember attending a prenatal session with a couple whose baby had an anomaly - I can't remember exactly what, but I think it was spina bifida - and they were discussing with the physicians their options, which included terminating the pregnancy. They were very open and talked about possible reasons for aborting the baby. They said that if they terminated the pregnancy it would not be because they didn't want to bother with a defective child, but because they didn't want the child to suffer in life.
Although I remained non- judgemental at the prenatal session, I didn't quite buy what they were saying. For the sake of the baby they were aborting him or her? I suspect the real reason they and most parents pregnant with anomalous children terminate the pregnancy is for themselves, so they don't have to deal with the problem. Why, I suspect their reasoning goes, should they have to care for a child with a defect when they don't have to? Maybe I'm being too hard on parents - and I would certainly hate to ever have to be in their position - but I don't think so.
And even if they were terminating the child for the child's sake, to spare him or her from suffering, is that what the child would have wanted? Do children with spina bifida suffer so much that they wish they had never been born? Perhaps it varies from child to child, but I'm guessing the answer is usually no.
Nobody knew the answer to my colleague's question at the conference. Fortunately, the fetus in question had no birth defects.