That is debatable in itself because the unborn without Downs has protection from being aborted after 24 weeks. The law may say the unborn has no rights but there is discrimination against unborn with Downs.
H mom claim The only way to remove a fetus at 17 weeks is called "abortion."
- Thread starter Authentic Nouveau
- Start date
Yep. Without Downs the unborn has protection from abortion after 24 weeks
Obviously is.
Give your evidence of where the law says it is non discriminatory in this matter
The law doesnt mention discrimination which is why I asked you. Where did you get the idea? Whether you think the law doesnt discriminate, the evidence shows it does. It discriminates against the unborn with Downs syndrome in respect of 24 weeks and birth. This is not subjective, this is the difference.
Indeed the elephant is in the room
"there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped", which includes Down's syndrome.
This implies Downs syndrome is a serious handicap, yet we see from the woman its not always the case. There is deception here.
It should say "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped", no need to make Downs a category where non serious Downs conditions can also be aborted simply because the category is Downs syndrome
Also Temujin,
"there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped"
That means it is the child in the womb. More deception.
Last edited:
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
They are clinical characteristics but are they mentioned in UK law?
The lady in question doesnt have serious intellectual disability and quite clearly because she can instigate a court case.
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
So a child is a person is it not? There is a substantial difference between a child and an adult, but you have no problem with both being persons.
Your prejudice is exposed
Yeah, thats the deception
Temujin
Well-known member
I have. It was tested in the court case you yourself posted. Don't you read your own links?
No. Why would they be? That's a medical, not a legal matter.
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 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.
Ok so are you claiming the court case was the test? Does it say there is no discrimination or that your opinion? If its your opinion then you will need to address what you think discrimination is. Clearly by dictionary definition singling out the condition Downs syndrome, regardless of its severity, to be able to be aborted up until birth is discrimination.
Show me where it mentions the word 'discrimination' then
Temujin
Well-known member
Woman with Down’s syndrome loses court of appeal abortion law case
Heidi Crowter argued that the law was discriminatory and stigmatised disabled people
www.theguardian.com
The Guardian lol. No Temujin, the judge didnt mention 'discrimination' in that report and neither does the law.Woman with Down’s syndrome loses court of appeal abortion law case
Heidi Crowter argued that the law was discriminatory and stigmatised disabled people
The reality is that it IS discrimination if Downs syndrome can be aborted up until birth if its mild and not server.
This is pathetic. The discrimination is that Downs syndrome can be aborted with other severe disabilities even when its mild.
Its basic logic.
Temujin
Well-known member
Which argument was dismissed, by two courts so far. And yet you cannot bring yourself to admit that it happened. What price reality, when your personal delusions, and I mean specifically YOUR personal delusions, override it? Even the appellant was able to say that she was disappointed that she lost, yet you cannot say it. Pathetic.