I’ve long wondered about this

“The policy basically says that it’s normal for a baby with Down’s syndrome to be terminated right up until birth.
“The reason why this is important to me is because I have Down’s syndrome, I know what it is to have it, and my husband has it.”
Asked how she feels to have been given the go-ahead with her landmark legal battle, she added: “I feel amazing knowing that the case is going to be heard in the High Court.”

We’ve a certain contradiction in the law here.

Abortion is legal up until birth in cases of severe deformity. But only to 24 weeks in cases without deformity.

We have strict anti-discrimination legislation against the disabled. Hmm, perhaps in favour of the disabled.

So, abortion law is different for the disabled and the not so. This is discrimination that we have laws against.

Dunno about this specific case or any other but there is that contradiction there all the same.

8 thoughts on “I’ve long wondered about this”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    We can’t have too many of those sort of people we don’t want too many of being born. As the Notorious RGB might have said.

    We have a mish mash of laws designed to make people feel good while allowing abortion on demand for anyone who wants it. Especially the disabled. The only issue is what the public will accept while allowing as much eugenics as possible.

    You know, maybe they are on to something:

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/28/wife-decided-abort-unborn-gay-son/

  2. “It’s normal for a baby with Down’s syndrome to be terminated right up until birth.”

    A bit of weasley wordage there. I doubt that it’s normal. Preggers mums have scans for these things months and months before. What i’m guessing is 1) some false negatives, or missed appointments, that get caught later. and 2) there’s an NHS waiting list.

  3. A quick google suggests that the test isn’t reliable until the abortion limit is almost reached. Add in a second test to be really, really sure and NHS delays…

    Also, the author is exceptional. The majority of Down’s sufferers could not articulate “The government thinks I should have been aborted.”

  4. Roué- Ok then normal makes better sense. I think some of that might be because amniocentesis runs a risk of inducing miscarriage So do it later. A new 24 week limit would mean mum’s choice has to be made over you have a x% chance of a DS baby, rather than a 100 %. Some will go for it some won’t. Some will take the invasive test early. Either way the effect of the late term ban would be 46 chromosomes babies terminated as well as 48. As Tim would say no solutions just trade offs.

  5. If the limit of 24 weeks is based on foetal viability, then this seems unethical to me. After 24 weeks, we consider them to be legal persons with rights, rather than part of the mother, so terminating is no longer the mother’s decision. To kill at 7 months in the womb is as ethical as killing at 2 days old, or deciding that you’d rather not have an autistic child at 2 years old and killing them.

    If it’s about resources, cut the spending on whatever shit the government is shovelling a few billion into this week and divert it. Cut the healthcare of people in their 90s who have had a good life and let cancer take them.

  6. Chris

    It’s fine, all the way up to the point where the little thing can look you in the eye and say “Daddy, I love you”. After that, no, it’s probably too late.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *