Con's argument is extraordinarily problematic and his refutation comes down to three simple ideas:
1. That my argument is a mere slippery slope
2. That because infants cannot feel fear/awareness that they can be killed without consequence
3. That women would only kill in the most extreme of circumstances
Firstly, let's examine number 3, since his source explicitly counters this very argument. As the abstract explains, "Subsequent studies have supported the proposal that the motivations differ, but suggest that most infant homicides are due to a sudden loss of temper with the child 9
and not altruism." Thus, we already go into the morally ambiguous territory. What makes it completely unacceptable is that YOU are making the decision for the child whether you think their life is worth living or not. You think that their disability is so terrible that their life will be insufferable, yet Con offers no standard for "insufferable disability".
Steven Hawking was paralyzed later in his life but was one of the most significant scientists who ever lived. Would Con argue his life was so insufferable that his mother should be able to murder him in his sleep? "My life is my choice," I like to say. Indeed, as a disabled person realizes, "Not a single organisation of, or for, disabled people, or one representing people with long term health conditions has campaigned for assisted suicide to be legalised."  The basis for racism and sexism comes from Con's logic. You say that being paralyzed is horrible, that living with one arm is worse off, but it is near impossible to say that you would rather allow for the entire justice system to be eroded merely depending on parents' decisions. Con thinks that based on statistics, the allowance of infanticide would differ from the actual results, but he doesn't think far enough. Con's advocacy is not only for murder of infants with worrying consequences for vulnerable people in general, Con also encourages doctors to simply give up.
As my source further empowers, "Many of us, myself included, are alive now because of the skill of the medical profession, advances in drug treatments, and improved devices. We are immensely grateful. We want you to keep asking yourselves, “How can I improve this person’s health and quality of life?” " Now clearly, the full impact of allowing killing of disabled people is intensely problematic as a whole. If you would give up on these people because you *think* they cannot live on, even if they have the potential to become another Hawking, then you lose immense proportion of the potential work force, and you arbitrarily separate people with rights and people without rights. Con argues that the child should be judged and given the death penalty merely because they are a "burden on the family" and "severely handicapped". So would we give death penalty to all people who are in wheelchairs? Would we stop giving medicare to the elderly as their expenses grow higher and higher? Con answers none of these questions, merely stating this is a slippery slope fallacy, without telling me WHY Con's world wouldn't enact similar laws for all of the vulnerable population. By CON's logic, we MUST enact these very laws because it's unacceptable for people to remain handicapped and become a burden.
Argument 2 can be dismissed easily. Unconsciousness does not make killing legal. You are neither aware nor fearful in your sleep, yet at one point you will be awake, thus, you will still be able to feel paranoia at people being able to kill you without consequence. Con does not set a baseline for what exact level of handicap or burden would allow people to murder, hence, Argument 1 would be fulfilled completely and force con to admit that there is no clear line between killing a man who broke his arm and killing the baby.
So, why is killing an infant wrong?
1. Not merely slippery slope, but rather absurd logic that allows you to kill any disabled people whatsoever
2. All humans inherently having a right to life when born, which is deserved and justified
3. The undermining of justice system overall due to allowing a position of authority having say on someone merely because of lack of awarness/knowledge