In 1964 a woman contracted rubella while pregnant. Her child was born with significant disabilities. The parents of that child sued the doctor, alleging both ‘wrongful birth’ and ‘wrongful life’ based on what they alleged was the doctor’s negligence. In other words, if they had known more, they would have aborted their child and now the doctor needed to pay.
The court rejected the parents’ arguments and concluded:
A court cannot say what defects should prevent an embryo from being allowed life such that denial of the opportunity to terminate the existence of a defective child in embryo can support a cause for action. . . A child need not be perfect to have a worthwhile life. . . . The sanctity of a single human life is the decisive factor in this suit in tort. Eugenic considerations are not controlling. We are not talking here about the breeding of prize cattle (emphasis mine). . . We firmly believe the right of the child to live is greater than and precludes their right not to endure emotional and financial distress.
Indeed.
Known as Gleitman v. Cosgrove, it continues to be an influential part of the law, but unfortunately not a decisive part. Click here for a good description of ‘wrongful birth’ and ‘wrongful life’ court actions, from the Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review.
The Works of God 
I think that the general feeling of parents when they are confronted with a child who has significant disabilities is “I didn’t ask for this” and also with a sense that “someone has to pay for this.” The attitude reveals how sinful that type of thinking is. Rather than coming to our Heavenly Father in humility and asking Him to help meet the needs, there is a resentment that refuses to look at how God can work this together for good. Even for Christians, there can be a “testing” of God. I thank God for his precious Son and His mercies that are new every morning.