[Mrs. Don-o]

Your comment seems to be based on the assumption that a criminal case had to be brought against the mother, and/or that the mother would have to pay the damages. The article did not make clear "who" would be paying, so I looked up the law.

In the UK, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority pays the benefit to the victim of crime. A criminal conviction does not need to be secured to award Criminal Injuries Compensation.

So it';s not a question of dragging the mother to court, just a matter of the CICA admitting that the little girl was injured by someone else's act. Under UK law, she absolutely qualifies for it right now, except that the Abortion Lobby (BPAS) is blocking this precisely on the ground that the little girl, when injured, was not a "person."

I think this puts a different light on things.

And I think you're quite right that this paves the way for forced abortions. No part of the British "system" wants to be burdened with the healthcare needs of a little girl they knew was going to be born with disabilities.

[Mrs. Don-o]

By the way, here's something useful for how to tell the difference between a human prenatal child and a parasite:

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html