Molly Baroness Meacher of the House of Lords in Britain said that severely disabled children are “not viable people” and should have been aborted because it would have been in their best interest. I kid you not:
Seriously disabled children should be considered non-persons and would be better off having been aborted, according to a Peer speaking in the House of Lords Tuesday. Attempting to couch her assertion in terms of children’s “rights”, Molly Baroness Meacher told the Lords that children born with severe disabilities are “not viable people”.
The comments came as the Lords debated an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, put forward by Lady Swinton, Baroness Masham of Ilton, that would have protected unborn disabled children from abortion after the 24 week gestational time limit. The amendment was defeated by 89 votes to 22.
Under Britain’s abortion law, children judged to have some form of disability, including such comparatively minor disabilities as club foot or cleft palate, can be aborted up to the time of natural birth.
Referring to two children she knows who were born prematurely with severe cerebral palsy, Baroness Meacher said, “They were natural births. Those two children cannot breathe naturally; they have to be helped to breathe. They will never talk. They lie on their backs and can do nothing.”
“My belief is that there are children, born at those very early ages, who are not viable people. It would be in their best interests to have been aborted.”
She said, “I want to speak about the rights of the child. The Mental Capacity Act refers to the child having capacity; if they do not have capacity, it is important for the professionals to consider their best interests.”
“There rests my case. We need to consider the best interests of these babies.”
To Baroness Meacher, it’s in their best interests to die? This is monstrous. The national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children put it correctly when he said this:
“Baroness Meacher,” Smeaton said, “clearly considers that her own capacity and achievements in life put her right to life in a different category from the right to life owed to people with cerebral palsy – that she is ‘viable person’ but ‘they’ are not ‘viable people’.”
This sounds like something out of a sick science fiction movie.