LONDON, ENGLAND, Jan 28 (LifeSiteNews) – A decision by a British judge to authorize the surgical removal of a woman’s womb without her consent is expected to generate a storm of outrage among disabled Brits and others concerned about respect for life. Remarkably, the request for the surgery on the mentally disabled woman was made by her mother, with the government acting in the potential victim’s defence. Two disability groups, the mental health charity Mind and learning disabled charity Mencap, have already expressed their outrage at the decision by the British high court, reported the Daily Telegraph.

The mother apparently fears that her very attractive daughter is at a high risk of becoming pregnant. The daughter’s name has not been made public. She attends a day centre five days a week but is cared for by her mother. Government lawyers challenged this concern, arguing that the young woman’s lifestyle gave no indication that she would be at risk for becoming pregnant: “There was no indication in the young woman’s way of life to suggest any change in her attitude toward men. She had an obsession with cleanliness and bodily functions and it was argued that she was unlikely to find sex either attractive or pleasurable.” The judge claimed that the operation would “enhance the quality of her life.” The government is planning an appeal.

See the National Post reprint of the Daily Telegraph article.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.