Having gone back through the thread I notice that you also quoted my post in a context other than that in which it was posted.
I don't think there is anything out of context there, and I note your clarification:
Edit: Since at least two posters seem to have misinterpreted this post, it is a direct response to the suggestion that the 24-week limit should be applied universally, not specifically relating to Down's Syndrome.
...which is what I understood your post to be about in the first instance.
The argument you make is that someone other than the person with Down's syndrome - usually the mother - gets to pre-judge, before birth, the worthiness of that person's potential life and gets greater scope to abort the foetus, simply because of the birth defect.
The complainant here is a married woman who, without evidence to the contrary, has a good and fulfilling quality of life.
As I noted above, something that impacts on your right to be born ceases to be discriminatory against you as soon as you are born. There is, an argument to be made that it's discriminatory against those currently in the womb, or against those not yet conceived, but I still can't see how it infringes on her rights in any way.
Regardless of the legal position stated by the judge, it most certainly can be the case that law which does not affect you, or historical injustices which you did not directly suffer, can diminish you.
I agree with the complainant that the special exemption for aborting people with Down's, which is fundamentally centred on the argument you correctly state thus:
people are forced to have children who have no viable long-term prospects, at great expense to either themselves or society. Not to mention that the children themselves have no meaningful quality of life.
affects the position, social status, and acceptance of people who have Down's within society. Whether this has a strict legal basis is what has been decided today, but I and many others can certainly see her argument.