Vive La France!

motorbiking said:
Its not me who doesn't understand..
Click to expand...
Can you even read....

Currently, the requirement for two doctors to certify that a woman meets the legal grounds for abortion has the potential to delay treatment. It may be difficult for a woman who is concerned about confidentiality to find two doctors to approve her abortion request. There is no central monitoring of delays to treatment of this type, but recently, Tony Calland, the Medical Ethics Committee Chair of the British Medical Association (BMA) said that "some women waited up to 13 weeks [gestation] to have their abortion approved by two doctors and removing this requirement would reduce such a wait and the associated risks". The requirement for two signatures for solely legal purposes also increases treatment costs by introducing unnecessary bureaucracy.

By Dr Tony Calland. You can look him up on the Web. (y)
 
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.
Click to expand...

You don't even understand basic grammar, ffs.

(TOP TIP: have a look where the comma is and try reading it again) (y)
 
"The Abortion Act 1967 requires two doctors to approve the decision and that at least one of seven legal criteria is met in order for the abortion to be legal."

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Reforming Abortion Law | RCOG

www.rcog.org.uk www.rcog.org.uk
 
Yes it's interesting that those lobbying for change, misrepresent the current situation to suit the narrative.

1/4 a million women get an abortion every year and 90% under 10 weeks. We really don't seem to have a problem.
 
noseall said:
WRONG. Read it again. This is going to be fun....

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.

'Authorising an abortion', is precisely what they are saying, lol. I can't believe you posted that!

P.S. look where the comma is. (y)
Click to expand...
This 'Fun' you speak of: will it start soon and shall i bring olive oil and a greasy weasel? :unsure:

"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."

Suggest you read it again yourself and tell us the difference betwixt the twain...
 
motorbiking said:
and it was in fact this piece of legislation that finally brought power to the abortion act.
Click to expand...

It really wasn't. If it was, why did the number of abortions actually fall in the three years after it was passed?

Let me try to explain it again, but even more simply.

Under the original Act, we had all the things you have previously claimed weren't available, including the socio-economic criteria and the mental health grounds for abortion. The only difference from now was that, instead of a 24 week time limit, there was a time limit set at the lower of either 28 weeks or the age of a viable foetus. Then in 1987, some foolish father, who was trying to stop the the mother getting an abortion, took a case to court, claiming that the age of a viable foetus was as low as 18 to 21 weeks. He lost bigly.

The Court refused to make the orders, ruling that although a fetus between eighteen and twenty-one weeks old showed signs of movement, it was not capable of being born alive within the meaning of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. The Court did not make a ruling on the lower court's conclusion that the father and the fetus had no standing to bring this action. The House of Lords rejected the plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the holding of the Court of Appeal
Click to expand...

But to avoid any doubt in future, as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the government set a hard time limit at 24 weeks, instead of the previous time limit of either 28 weeks or the age of a viable foetus. That was the only change made in 1991. All the other changes, which you have claimed were made in 1991, never happened. They were already in the original Act from 1967.

Is there anything there you still don't understand?
 
motorbiking said:
Yes it's interesting that those lobbying for change, misrepresent the current situation to suit the narrative.
Click to expand...
Dr Tony Calland was one such distinguished fellow and misrepresents nothing. He's even put forth the need for change regards the approval process, in regards to early termination.

Thanks for asking, by the way. (y)

Oh, another snipped from Dr Tony Calland , if I may...


Currently, the requirement for two doctors to certify that a woman meets the legal grounds for abortion has the potential to delay treatment. It may be difficult for a woman who is concerned about confidentiality to find two doctors to approve her abortion request. There is no central monitoring of delays to treatment of this type, but recently, Tony Calland, the Medical Ethics Committee Chair of the British Medical Association (BMA) said that "some women waited up to 13 weeks [gestation] to have their abortion approved by two doctors and removing this requirement would reduce such a wait and the associated risks". The requirement for two signatures for solely legal purposes also increases treatment costs by introducing unnecessary bureaucracy.

Give it up boyo, it's painful watching you squirm.
 
Last edited:
A wait of up to 13 weeks is cutting it fine if they don't get approval and consent before week 12. How much faster can they make the mental assessment to ensure all is well to proceed?
 
Odds 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."

Suggest you read it again yourself and tell us the difference betwixt the twain...
Click to expand...

Doesn't it just mean that the doctor has reached an opinion in good faith that the legal criteria are met, and that he doesn't have to make a moral judgement about whether going ahead is 'right'?
 
JonathanM said:
Doesn't it just mean that the doctor has reached an opinion in good faith that the legal criteria are met, and that he doesn't have to make a moral judgement about whether going ahead is 'right'?
Click to expand...
you'll have to wait for 'biking of the Bailey to answer that one - i only work here. :mrgreen:
 
JonathanM said:
It really wasn't. If it was, why did the number of abortions actually fall in the three years after it was passed?

Let me try to explain it again, but even more simply.

Under the original Act, we had all the things you have previously claimed weren't available, including the socio-economic criteria and the mental health grounds for abortion. The only difference from now was that, instead of a 24 week time limit, there was a time limit set at the lower of either 28 weeks or the age of a viable foetus. Then in 1987, some foolish father, who was trying to stop the the mother getting an abortion, took a case to court, claiming that the age of a viable foetus was as low as 18 to 21 weeks. He lost bigly.



But to avoid any doubt in future, as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the government set a hard time limit at 24 weeks, instead of the previous time limit of either 28 weeks or the age of a viable foetus. That was the only change made in 1991. All the other changes, which you have claimed were made in 1991, never happened. They were already in the original Act from 1967.

Is there anything there you still don't understand?
Click to expand...
C vs S did not strike out on the basis that the abortion was lawful, they tested the criteria of the 1929 act. This was because any abortion on socio-economic grounds of a viable foetus was unlawful and while there was an upper time limit where the foetus would be deemed viable there was no lower time limit. That was addressed in the 1990 act.

You are now claiming that in 1990 "to avoid any doubt" - do you realise how ridiculous that argument is?

(4)For section 5(1) of that Act (effect on M2Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929) there is substituted—

“(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 finally it was the 1990 changes that gave the full protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top