Can anyone explain the basis of this lawsuit to me?

[507020]

I don’t understand this at all. So if this woman with Down’s syndrome is pregnant and her baby will inherit Down’s syndrome from her, why is she unable to have an abortion on the grounds that her baby will be born with Down’s syndrome when women without Down’s syndrome can. That is discrimination.

 

[Dai Corner]

What about when you are using contraception but it fails? When the condom splits? When the anti-biotics your taking interact poorly with the pill? When you're in the wrong part of your cycle for the morning after pill to be effective? Did she commit to giving birth then?

Potentially, yes. An objective risk assessment would take those possibilities into account

I accept that such a risk assessment probably wouldn't be be made in the throes of passion

 

[najaB]

it says the same legislation is used to terminate people with cleft lips, or club feet too.

I suspect this is an exception rather than the rule as it would be difficult (I hope) to find two doctors who would put their names to paper to support it.

I don’t understand this at all. So if this woman with Down’s syndrome is pregnant and her baby will inherit Down’s syndrome from her, why is she unable to have an abortion on the grounds that her baby will be born with Down’s syndrome when women without Down’s syndrome can. That is discrimination.

I think you may have misunderstood the case. The claim is that allowing abortions that would otherwise be illegal, on the grounds of relatively minor genetic abnormalities is discriminatory.

 

[DarloRich]

it says the same legislation is used to terminate people with cleft lips, or club feet too.

You are being selective. The crucial missing phrase is "could be". The linked judgement address this point.

I don’t understand this at all. So if this woman with Down’s syndrome is pregnant and her baby will inherit Down’s syndrome from her, why is she unable to have an abortion on the grounds that her baby will be born with Down’s syndrome when women without Down’s syndrome can. That is discrimination.

this is not what the case is about - suggest reading the linked judgement