I explained the nature of the discrimination, I never mentioned the law. It was you who claimed the law had been tested. Who tested it and when? Back up your claim
I have. It was tested in the court case you yourself posted. Don't you read your own links?
They are clinical characteristics but are they mentioned in UK law?
No. Why would they be? That's a medical, not a legal matter.
The lady in question doesnt have serious intellectual disability and quite clearly because she can instigate a court case.
So what? The disabilities involved in Down's are not limited to cognitive impairment, which may be mild or severe. Also the case does not revolve around one person, who obviously has not been discriminated against personally, but for Down's sufferers in general.
The point that you seem to purposely want to omit, is that abortion can happen up until birth for severe disability, but for any Downs syndrome even if it is mild. That discriminates against Down syndrome
The point you are failing to grasp is that Down's, in common with other syndromes detected late in pregnancy, offers a substantial risk of severe disability. That occasionally Down's sufferers do extremely well in coping with their disability is not relevant, since the Act is concerned with risk, not certainty. Perhaps you would prefer the Act to allow the euthanasia of disabled children after birth once the severity of their disability, which may not become apparent for years, has been established? The Act concerns the health, safety and welfare of women, not the unborn. That is it's focus. If a pregnant woman is content with the risk that her child may be born with a severe disability, she can continue the pregnancy to term. If she is not prepared to accept that risk, she can have an abortion. All this remains the case whatever the form of the risk of disability takes, be it Downs or otherwise. Down's is not singled out in any way, which one of the reasons that the court case failed.