Yep. Without Downs the unborn has protection from abortion after 24 weeksNope.
Obviously is.The law has been tested and found to be non discriminatory. Not debatable. You lose again.
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.The evidence is contained in the link you yourself posted. Didn't you read it? The law does not mention discrimination.
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 claimFrom you.
They are clinical characteristics but are they mentioned in UK law?Secondly, the young lady in question does have a serious disability. She does not have a profound disability. Disabilities in the UK are classed as mild, severe or profound.
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.So? I am perfectly comfortable with the phrase unborn child. I use it myself frequently. My problem is with those who use child or baby as if there was no substantial difference between a born child and a foetus or embryo. There is such a difference, biologically, legally, socially and morally. As long as the differentiation between born and unborn is clear, which as you would expect, it is in an Act of Parliament, then I'm content.
I have. It was tested in the court case you yourself posted. Don't you read your own links?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
No. Why would they be? That's a medical, not a legal matter.They are clinical characteristics but are they mentioned in UK law?
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 lady in question doesnt have serious intellectual disability and quite clearly because she can instigate a court case.
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.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
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.I have. It was tested in the court case you yourself posted. Don't you read your own links?
It says that there's no discrimination. That is literally the subject of the judgement. As I have been saying repeatedly. Clearly you are suffering from brain freeze, or is it blind prejudice?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
The Guardian lol. No Temujin, the judge didnt mention 'discrimination' in that report and neither does the law.
This is pathetic. The discrimination is that Downs syndrome can be aborted with other severe disabilities even when its mild.Is this the pathetic, self-serving, puerile nonsense you are reduced to in order to cling to the shreds of your self respect. R
Do you know what discrimination is? For a clear and lengthy description, read the full judgement. What the BBC reported is a precis. What the Guardian reported is also a precis. It's the same case. Find the report in the Christian Sewer Worker's Weekly and you will get a different precis again. All say that the woman claiming discrimination against unborn children with Down's, lost her case. Deal with it.
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.This is pathetic. The discrimination is that Downs syndrome can be aborted with other severe disabilities even when its mild.
Its basic logic.