In the UK it is legal to abort a Down's Syndrome baby up until the moment of birth

by LoveUniHateExams 18 Replies latest social current

• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  There was a recent legal challenge, brought about by a woman who herself has Down's, which sought to overturn this sad state of affairs.

  And a few days ago, a judge upheld the original law and denied her legal challenge.

  This is pretty sick, don't you think?

  Pro-abortion people love to ridicule religious people who claim that life begins at conception, so the obvious question is, when does life actually begin?

  Some more questions:

  Aren't 9 month old Down's Syndrome babies considered to be persons and alive?

  Don't they have rights?

  Who will protect them and stand up for them?

  Isn't the current state of affairs a form of apartheid?
  

  I'm seriously thinking of writing to my local MP about this. She has a legal background, I think.
• 

  Simon

  Abort? Fancy word for "Murder".

  Murdering unborn babies - just another sick policy of the left.
• 

  Rafe

  Totally agree this is wrong and needs to be changed.

  Quite surprised this rule/law exists in the UK.
  
• 

  Earnest

  Regardless of my own views on abortion, it may be worth considering just what the law in England, Wales and Scotland does say (the law is different in Northern Ireland). The Abortion Act of 1967 said that abortion was allowed at any stage of the pregnancy if two registered medical practitioners were of the opinion, formed in good faith,
  

  • that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
  • that 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.

  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 amended the first condition to say that in the case of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or her children an abortion would only be legal if the pregnancy had not exceeded its twenty-fourth week. However, this time limit does not apply if the pregnancy would cause grave permanent injury to the pregnant woman, or if it would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman.

  The second condition, which includes Down's syndrome as being "seriously handicapped", was not amended. The judgment rendered in the recent case did not change the law but ruled that the Abortion Act was not unlawful, as reported by the BBC.
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Eugenics and The Left go together like Peanut Butter and Jelly.

  DD
• 

  Earnest

  This association of the Abortion Act of 1967 with "murder", "eugenics" and "the left" is so ridiculous and small-minded it is worth highlighting what the position was prior to the Abortion Act being passed.

  Between 1861 and 1929 if a woman attempted to have an abortion by poison or any other means, and anyone who assisted her, would be liable to prosecution with a penalty of between two years and life imprisonment under the Offences Against the Person Act.
  

  In 1929 the Infant Life (Preservation) Act allowed abortion only if it was done to preserve the life of the mother.

  Then in 1967 the Abortion Act was passed which also allowed abortion for other reasons including the probability that the child would be seriously handicapped, either mentally or physically, when born.

  Prior to this a woman who had been raped (and became pregnant), or was a victim of incest (and became pregnant), or who believed her unborn child would be seriously handicapped ... and did not want the child ... would get an illegal abortion with all the medical risks that went with that. A National Poll at the time of the 1967 Abortion Act estimated that there were 31,000 illegal abortions a year, and a total of 600,000 abortions from 1946-66, mostly illegal.

  Which was the better scenario when a pregnant woman was determined to get an abortion? That it be performed in a hospital by a qualified doctor, or in some backstreet under cover of darkness which often resulted in infection or worse.
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Ummm.. We’re talking about aborting a late term pregnancy because the baby has Down syndrome, AND, there’s some sick sh@@ going on behind closed doors at Planned Parenthood.

  If you think it all about the health of the Mother you are naive.

  DD
• 

  shadowclone

  The left kills before birth, the right kills after. System works perfectly . . .
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  According to the OT Bible Yahweh/Jehovah when he was mad with the adult Israelites/Judahites and adult people of some other nations, he sometimes told his prophets that as punishment the wombs of pregnant women would be cut open (and thus that the babies inside would killed) and that very young children already born would be killed. Thus, according to the OT Bible Yahweh ordered and arranged people to carry out such executions (such as by arranging enemy nations of the Jews to do such). Thus, according to the Bible Yahweh is an abortionist and a murder of the very young.

  Also, in the Bible Yahweh sometimes ordered the Jews to kill all of the people (including the children) of some of the Canaanite city states, even all of the cattle/livestock. Thus the account says Yahweh ordered abortions of human infants.

  In the Bible children (including those in the womb) were viewed as property of their fathers. Thus when Yahweh (according to the Bible) ordered the executions, it was from the perspective of emotionally hurting the parents of those human fetuses and embryos and the already born children. In at least one case it was also due to disapproval of an infant in the womb, namely in the case of the first child conceived jointly by David and Bathsheba.

  If you reject all abortions of human babies as evil, then you should also reject the God the Bible as evil. Further, you should then also reject the "Holy" (so-called) book of the Jewish religion and of Christianity as also evil and reject their religions.

  Conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical Christians wake up!
  
• 

  Diogenesister

  Those who think it's wrong, let me ask....are you willing to adopt these kids then? Once they're born with major heart defects, Vision problems hearing loss, infections, Hypothyroidism, blood disorders, hypotonia (poor muscle tone), problems with the upper part of the spine. It's not just a question of having learning disabilities.

  Someone used that lass with downs syndrome who went to court to challenge the law. It must have greatly upset her and it's not something she needed to know. Highly doubtful she found out through her own research.

  In the UK it's extremely difficult to find adoptive parents for heathy boys over 3, let alone a downs child. They'd face a life of being in state care and as one who was in care for a while I can tell you it's horrific. When my babies were tested for downs (being an older mother) I had to seriously think about how they would manage after I died. The thought of their lonely struggle. There's many in an adult care facility on my road. Most of them get no visitors of their own (who aren't home volunteers).