Conservative UK MPs Condemn 'Medieval, Cruel' Abortion Laws After 39-Week Abortion
Conservative U.K. Members of Parliament have condemned a 39-week abortion of a pregnancy where the baby was deemed to be in significant risk of being disabled, calling the abortion laws that allow for such a decision "medieval and cruel."
"I do not understand how we can have a law which allows the life of a baby with a disability to be ended at full term. It is a graphic illustration of society's inconsistency on disability," said Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-life Group, according to The Sunday Express.
"After birth we work hard to ensure equality, but before birth we have laws to prevent the disabled taking their first breath. This medieval, cruel, discriminatory law must change."
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Abortion is legal in the U.K, but can only be carried out after 24 weeks if there is a grave risk to the mother's life, or if there is severe fetal abnormality.
The abortion of the 39-week pregnancy was allowed under such guidelines. The Department of Health added that in 2013 there were another three abortions carried out on mothers who were 38-weeks pregnant, and another two on women at 37-weeks pregnancy.
Statistics show that there were 190 abortions in total in 2013 beyond the 24-week limit, which is a 20 percent increase from 2012.
Labour MP Rob Flello added: "We have a Jekyll and Hyde approach to disability. On one hand the entire country can be united in praise of paralympians. On the other we can permit the abortion of children at nine months simply for the crime of having a disability.
"This law desperately needs some sanity."
In another controversial abortion case back in June, Britain's senior-most family judge ordered a 13-year-old girl to have an abortion against her wish because of low comprehension skills.
"She was described by the psychiatrist as being 'a very damaged and impaired young girl,' largely out of control a good part of the time," said Sir James Munby, president of the High Court's Family Division.
The girl was impregnated by a 14-year-old boy and had initially wanted to keep her baby, according to reports.
"Leaving to one side her own wishes and feelings, the preponderance of all the evidence is clear that it would be in her best interests to have a termination," the judge added.
A blogger at the Archbishop Cranmer blog criticized the ruling, and asked: "Do we now live in a country where one's IQ determines whether 'wishes and feelings' ought to be taken into account?"
"We're not talking here about whether she would like her bedroom painted orange or pink; we're talking about a baby – a new human life. Surely if a pregnant girl lacks the capacity to decide matters for herself, the unborn baby has the right to an advocate?" the blogger added.
