Vive La France!

[JonathanM]

You are ignoring sec 5. I’ve explained this to you.

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

Therefore the restrictions in the 1929 still applied

I know all this. But it is all irrelevant to the points I have raised. All the 1991 changes did was change the time limit.

It didn't do the three things you claimed. What you posted was utter nonsense.

The UK granted the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion in 1991.

Nonsense

the so called socio economic criteria allowed.

Nonsense

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

Nonsense

 

[carmanmemoranda]

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.

So swerving then, rather than admitting you are wrong. Trying to swerve at least.

Poor at this legal stuff aren't you.

Keep swerving, feel free, its just adding to your hole digging

 

[carmanmemoranda]

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:



That was obviously nonsense.

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



I asked how



More nonsense. They have been there since the 1967.

I asked again



More nonsense. The mental health grounds have been there since 1967.

He isn't a legal expert!

He is good at swerving

 

[motorbiking]

I know all this. But it is all irrelevant to the points I have raised. All the 1991 changes did was change the time limit.

It didn't do the three things you claimed. What you posted was utter nonsense.



Nonsense



Nonsense



Nonsense

you are wrong..

This is the change Supplementary provisions.

[F1(1)No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

So now the 3 things I mentioned are in effect, because the 67 act said the 29 act ruled..

 

[JonathanM]

you are wrong..

This is the change Supplementary provisions.

[F1(1)No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

So now the 3 things I mentioned are in effect, because the 67 act said the 29 act ruled..

Absolute nonsense.

Sorry to be brutal, but you are struggling to interpret some quite basic legislation.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Absolute nonsense.

Sorry to be brutal, but you are struggling to interpret some quite basic legislation.

Solicitors clerk.

Knows how to find the laws, but not how to interpret them.

 

[denso13]

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

Nobody is claiming that the doctors forming an opinion means the abortion is the right course of action. You keep saying similar things, you are misunderstanding the meaning of approval.

 

[noseall]

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.

You are missing a step here. Authorisation comes once they sign. Have you not been paying attention?

 

[noseall]

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

Waffle.

 

[noseall]

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.

Once they sign it IS though. Everyone else but you realises this.

 

[noseall]

Absolute nonsense.

Sorry to be brutal, but you are struggling to interpret some quite basic legislation.

I sincerely believe the bloke is nuts or has learning difficulties. He keeps referring to stages before what is considered 'approval' or 'authorisation', which occurs AFTER they sign.

 

[Vinty]

When has restricting access to abortion EVER had a positive effect

This kid was lucky enough to have parents who had respect for the sanctity of life.
Doctors told them their child wouldn't be able to speak.


Achieved more in his life than most of these "pro choice" bums ever will.

When James Martin was born, his parents were told he would probably never speak. He has now made Oscars history

Martin is the first person with Down syndrome to win an Academy Award after the film in which he starred, An Irish Goodbye, won best live action short film

www.irishtimes.com

 

[Vinty]

Exactly. So why did they make it easier in Northern Ireland than the rest of the UK?

The legalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland was imposed by Westminster without consent.
Sinn Fein support unresticted abortion.
The killing of innocents has always been vote winner for them.

 

[Notch7]

The legalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland was imposed by Westminster without consent.
Sinn Fein support unresticted abortion.
The killing of innocents has always been vote winner for them.

You are a Unionist, so surely you should want Northern Ireland to have the same laws as GB

 

[JonathanM]

The legalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland was imposed by Westminster without consent.
Sinn Fein support unresticted abortion.
The killing of innocents has always been vote winner for them.

I know it was imposed by Westminster. I've since found the consultation document. It says the reason for easier access than in the rest of the UK was that they were concerned about having enough doctors who would be willing to sign the forms. That had been my assumption as well.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dc0451aed915d1d05dfb81d/Government_consultation_-__A_new_legal_framework_for_abortion_services_in_Northern_Ireland__November_2019_.pdf

A different approach might be required as it is likely that there will be a more significant number of people raising conscientious objections than in other parts of the UK. This could create practical difficulties, in particular delays in women accessing termination services, if two medical professionals, both with an understanding of the woman or girl’s situation, are required to certify the grounds for an abortion.