I don't get this. You keep saying that, but I can't for the life of me imagine how a doctor would be the right person to know.
All a doctor can do is tell you things like stage of development, probability of survival, etc., and so a doctor certainly could give you input that would help you decide.
I give up according to you and others who think it's the women's right to decide she can be an ignorant drug addicted person with a borderline I.Q. and she can make a decision but an educated Doctor , scientist lawyer can't . oBVIOUSLY THE WOMEN WHO DOESN'T WANT THE KID ANYWAY WILL CHOOSE TO ABORT. and doesn't really stop to think whether she is aborting a child as opposed to a piece of flesh.
Unlike you I guess I do trust regular ordinary folks to make important decisions about their own lives and the lives of their children or in this case potential children. If someone is so borderline that they can't make an effective decision about their own life and the life of their potential child then their guardian ought to make the decision for them. I would agree with you that in the case of a parent who is so incapable that the state would have seized the child anyway, that perhaps in that case the decision should be made by another family member who is more thoughtful.
Doctors/lawyers/scientists, none of these people receive any theological, philosophical, or ethical training that would entitle them to make deeply personal decisions on behalf of other people. They are just geeks with some technical know-how.
You could convince me perhaps that someone's minister was in a good position to make this judgement; but we do not live in a theocracy, and many people have deeply personal philosophical or religious beliefs that they hold independent of any particular institutional religion.