Thank you for your work, olivehater, you do a tremendously difficult and important job 
To be clear, this case was not about increasing the legal termination for healthy foetuses. The claimants sought to decrease the time limit for terminations where the foetus has medical problems likely to result in serious disability.
The reason these additional questions have been raised is because of how the claimants framed their arguments around disability discrimination.
The judge rightly dismissed the claims of direct discrimination. A foetus does not have personhood, does not have human rights and cannot bring a discrimination claim.
But they also claimed that having different time limits affects attitudes towards all disabled people, sending the message that their lives are worth less. They argued that this constitutes indirect discrimination towards all disabled people, who obviously do have full human rights.
The judge also rejected this argument because the claimants had failed to show a direct link, but went on to say that even if there was a link that showed indirect discrimination it would still be lawful because it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
As the judge outlined at 113:
If we reach the stage of justification and must assess the proportionality of the measure, it is common ground that the well-known four stage test applies:
(1) Is the aim or objective of the interference sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a fundamental right?
(2) Is the interference rationally connected to such aim or objective?
(3) Could a less intrusive measure have been used?
(4) Having regard to these matters and to the severity of the interference, has a fair balance been struck between the rights of the individual and the general interests of the community?
If the time limit was removed then this would undoubtedly be a less intrusive measure. Especially as nobody would use it anyway. It would be completely unobtrusive.
This is the weakest part of the claimants' argument and the weakest part of the judgment because the judge just skipped over it and ruled that the current law struck a fair balance.
The claimants are going to appeal and they won't appeal on this point, obviously, because they don't want the time limit to be removed. However, they may well lose on this point if it's well argued.
Removing the time limit would not be just to set some sort of example, it would be to safeguard women's current abortion rights while preventing discrimination against disabled people.