Recently, a law student wrote denouncing the stand of MLAs against abortion, citing the European Convention on Human Rights. He implied that the unborn child has no human rights when he said that what a woman does with her own body is none of his business.
Presumabl, he holds the 1967 Abortion Act, which applies in "enlightened" Great Britain, to be ethically sound. In Great Britain abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks and to birth for an abnormality such as Down's syndrome.
Advanced care now means that 22-week premature babies are more likely to live than die. Yet such children can be aborted if their mother so wishes, or yields to pressure from the father.
So, a child of 22 weeks can be given advanced care, or attacked and killed on request. Once born the child has full protection in law. Anyone killing it would incur a murder charge. But in the womb it can be assaulted with impunity.
If it is right to abort (attack and kill) for having a disability up to birth, why not beyond?
The crux of the matter is personhood. Clearly, at 22 weeks a person is being cared for. To abort up to birth for Down's syndrome is to take someone's life.
Soon, Herod's massacre will be recalled and we are rightly appalled at the slaughter of children at school. But in Britain, where it is abortion on demand, people are accustomed to 200,000 killings annually.
In Nazi Germany parents routinely sent their disabled children to State institutions, where they were quietly murdered.
In Britain it is done in the womb.
The Declaration of Geneva (1948) stated: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat. I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."
This culture of life has been replaced by a culture of death.