Cameron backs abortion for disabled up to birth and bottles out on hfe bill

David Cameron is to be commended for backing the campaign to lower the upper abortion upper limit for 'normal' babies from 24 to 20 weeks; but he has today said that he thinks that disabled babies should continue to be aborted up until birth, even for minor correctible abnormalities like cleft palate and club foot.

Both David Cameron and Gordon Brown have disabled children and yet both support abortion up to the moment of birth for disability. Bizarre.

There were 136 abortions beyond 24 weeks in 2006, the last year for which statistics are currently available. This number included twelve babies with Down's syndrome. In all over 1,000 babies with Down's syndrome were estimated to have been aborted in 2005.

Given that most babies born at 24 weeks and cared for in good neonatal units will now survive, taking the life of a baby after 24 weeks in the womb as Cameron suggests, just because it is disabled, is surely tantamount to infanticide. It is also eugenics by stealth. It is extraordinary that he has taken this position and the correspondence on line suggests it was not a popular move.

A just and caring society is where the strong make sacrifices for the weak rather than dispensing with lives which are seen to impose a burden on others. This however seems not to be the type of society that the leaders of our two main parties are advocating.

It would be good to hear more from them about good quality care for disabled or dying babies and better support for parents of disabled children.

I note that Mr Cameron has also given his support to everything in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill with the exception of the clause that seeks to remove consideration of the need for a father for IVF children.

In other words he supports animal human hybrids, saviour siblings, preimplantation genetic diagnosis and cloning for mitochondrial disease. Although he has been very clear that he will allow a conscience vote on all issues in this proposed legislation; his MPs will look to him for a principled lead.

The two issues on which he has made a stand – 'upper limits' and 'fathers' – are interestingly the only two where members of his party (Nadine Dorries and Iain Duncan-Smith) have so far signaled an intention to lay down amendments.

Perhaps Mr Cameron would exhibit more courage if more members of his party were to oppose specific measures in the bill.