Does this court ruling make any sense?

Today, a married woman, a mother, who aborted her own baby has been sentenced to 8 years in prison for the destruction of her child in the final week of pregnancy.

The language used by the authorities is really very strong and condemnatory. According to The Telegraph's report:

'Passing sentence, Mr Justice Cooke said the seriousness of the crime lay between manslaughter and murder.

He told Catt: "What you did was end the life of a child that was capable of being born alive by inducing birth or miscarriage. What you have done is rob an apparently healthy child, vulnerable and defenceless, of the life which he was about to commence."

The judge said Catt would have been charged with murder if the baby had been born a few days later and she had then killed him. "

The child in the womb was so near to birth, in my judgment all right-thinking people would think this offence more serious than unintentional manslaughter," he said.'

Call me dumb, but can someone explain to me why this woman's offence is so terrible in the sight of the authorities when it is 100% legal to kill an unborn child up to birth in the case of 'defects' such as the kinds of disabilities displayed during the Paralympics?

Paralympian Ellie Simmonds

Obviously, I don't support what this woman has done in the slightest, but in an age in which the law of the land says you can take innocent human life in the womb up to birth if the child is disabled, it is a little rich for authorities and society to condemn her!

Of course, it is important to welcome any ruling that defends the life of the unborn but the hypocrisy surrounding this case surely stinks to the highest Heavens when any woman can walk into a clinic and get a disabled unborn baby killed in the final days of pregnancy on the NHS!

In the light of current UK abortion law, what sanctimonious garbage the judge was coming out with!

'What you have done is rob an apparently healthy child...'

So, if the child wasn't 'apparently healthy' then I guess its destruction could be justified, right? No case to be heard there, I guess, because even disabled persons are apparently not real persons when they're in the womb a day before birth!

Abortion, from conception to birth is either the destruction of human life or it is not. Judges, politicians, police and social services cannot have it both ways, because if you don't get an abortion at any time between 0 and 23 and a half weeks, then, you know, it is most likely that the child would be 'capable of being born alive'. All you've got to do is not kill it and look after yourself and the child will probably live!

If abortion is evil and wrong, as the Catholic Church maintains that it is, then it cannot be simply evil and wrong for this woman, but simultaneously right and just for the third of all British women who will have had an abortion by the age of 45, nor can it be right and just for the disabled to suffer the same penalty as the unborn child destroyed in this case. People may not like the teaching of the Church in this area but at least the Church is consistent.

Unless some genius can come up with the exact time that a 'potential life' becomes a 'human life' between the age of 0 to 9 months, I will remain baffled because most scientists remain convinced that life starts at conception.

What an horrendous thing for a mother to do to a child. May God have mercy on her, but given that the majority of men and women in the United Kingdom have the blood of the innocent on their hands, I hardly think the condemnatory remarks from any authorities hold water in this land.