Vive La France!

clearly smarter than carman who doesn't think its his responsibility to ensure someone who drives his car is legally allowed to.
 
motorbiking said:
clearly smarter than carman who doesn't think its his responsibility to ensure someone who drives his car is legally allowed to.
Click to expand...
Swerving away ?

Already told you. . I WOULD CHECK. HAVE IT DOUBLE CHECKED. AND SIGN AN APPROVAL DOCUMENT.

now, back to the doctors. What if they don't sign because they don't approve she meets the criteria. Over to you Mr Swerve
 
motorbiking said:
and the process of forming an opinion in the case of abortion is neither authorisation nor approval.
Click to expand...
Course it is. Given that they can say yea or nay, approval is perfectly acceptable. It has the same meaning.
 
motorbiking said:
No - I said doctors are required to approve many aspects of treatment
Click to expand...
No - here is what you posted - verbatim...
motorbiking said:
Make it as big as you like - You don't understand it. The doctors are required to authorise it because they have to assess if the abortion is likely to cause more harm than going term.
Click to expand...


motorbiking said:
To show that an opinion has been formed 'in good faith' does not mean that authorising an abortion must be the 'right' course of action, simply that the doctor has not been dishonest or negligent in forming that opinion. What makes an abortion lawful is the doctor's opinion that there are lawful grounds for the procedure, rather than the fact that those grounds exist.
So, for example, if two doctors believe in good faith that abortion carries less risk to a woman's physical or mental health than carrying the pregnancy to term, this makes the abortion legal – even if, in the eventuality, it would have been safer to carry the pregnancy to term (for example, if the abortion resulted in death or injury). Similarly, if a woman states that she cannot afford to continue the pregnancy, the doctor is not obliged to check that she really is lacking in funds.
Click to expand...
I'm astonished that an adult (you are grown up I take it) is actually still denying that the doctors are approving or authorising the abortion.

So far, doctors have said it is authorising /approving.

Solicitors say it is authorising/approving.

Parliamentary Reports say it is authorising/approving.

Nurses and midwives say it is authorising/approving.

MBK said it is authorising.

Am i hallucinating?
 
Jeez can you even read?

To show that an opinion has been formed 'in good faith' does not mean that authorising an abortion must be the 'right' course of action

It literally tells them this is not an authorisation.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
Swerving away ?

Already told you. . I WOULD CHECK. HAVE IT DOUBLE CHECKED. AND SIGN AN APPROVAL DOCUMENT.

now, back to the doctors. What if they don't sign because they don't approve she meets the criteria. Over to you Mr Swerve
Click to expand...
because its your legal obligation to do so..

Not that you knew this.. how embarrassing.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
No.

Already told you id check.

But looks like you need to admit, as a "legal expert" that you were, and still are, wrong.

Or going to swerve again instead?
Click to expand...
How on earth can "it is not up to me to ensure you are legally authorised" be correct, when the law literally says it is.

it literally tells you in s87 that its an offence.
 
motorbiking said:
Why not quote the whole paragraph, it's fairly obvious I am talking about a medical authorisation... which is nothing to do with the legal exemption.
Click to expand...

I am starting to wonder whether you have actually convinced yourself that you might be right!

I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is now clear to me that you have misunderstood the law profoundly right from the start of this thread. Early on you said this:

motorbiking said:
The UK granted the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion in 1991
Click to expand...

That was obviously nonsense.

I then asked again what you thought had happened in 1991.

motorbiking said:
The bar was substantially lowered
Click to expand...

I asked how

motorbiking said:
the so called socio economic criteria allowed
Click to expand...

More nonsense. They have been there since the 1967.

I asked again

motorbiking said:
1967 - in order to save the mother and risk needs to be less than giving birth
1991 - risk of abortion just needs to be less than risk of giving birth and some evidence that there would be harm to the mental health etc..
Click to expand...

More nonsense. The mental health grounds have been there since 1967.
 
You are ignoring sec 5. I’ve explained this to you.

Sec 1 in the 1967 act did not amend the 1929 act.

5Supplementary provisions.
(1)Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the [1929 c. 34.] Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (protecting the life of the viable foetus).


Therefore the restrictions in the 1929 still applied

here they are again...

Punishment for child destruction.
(1)Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:

Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.

(2)For the purposes of this Act, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be primâ facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.

So again.. it didn't matter what sec 1 said was lawful - the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 has precedence
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top