Vive La France!

I’m glad we all agree now.

By the way blup. It was the 1929 act that included the 28 week limit, but critically there was no lower limit of viability.
 
motorbiking said:
I’m glad we all agree now.
Click to expand...

We all agree that the source of the time limit, before 1991, was the 1929 Act. We actually agreed that about twenty pages ago. It doesn't change all the other things you were wrong about, including the socio-economic criteria and the mental health grounds.
 
motorbiking said:
By the way blup. It was the 1929 act that included the 28 week limit, but critically there was no lower limit of viability.
Click to expand...

Just to remind you:

JonathanM said:
The court ruled on the age of viability of the foetus. Nobody had been foolish enough to claim before that, at 21 weeks, a foetus might be viable. The man who brought this case was laughed out of court. But to stop any other idiot doing it again, they changed the law in 1991, to bring in a fixed 24 week time limit, so there would be no doubt in future about the time limit. I would imagine a 10 year old could understand this.
Click to expand...
 
JonathanM said:
No it didn't. What you call "de facto abortion on demand" is restricted to 24 weeks.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure a late termination was allowed to go ahead when a rich woman objection the baby missing a finger
JonathanM said:
They did simplify the construction of the law, which was the subject of my post. Instead of having the time limit in a different Act, they brought the time limit into the Abortion Act itself. I mean simplified in the sense that now there are only two Acts rather than three.
Click to expand...
This thread suggests otherwise
JonathanM said:
It disapplied the 1929 Act in these cases. See the point immediately above. The Act itself was unchanged.
Click to expand...
Disapplied indeed
 
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...
Between which two?

The statement clearly refers to abortion authorisation, to those who can read, understand grammar and English. It's not difficult.
 
Last edited:
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...
Abortion law gives women the right to an abortion -their choice

If the law required the person authorising the abortion to make a moral judgement then it would no longer be the right of women to make the choice

Its a unique law, because the default is: you ve the right to do it, but if you don't follow the process it is illegal

and in my opinion the reason for the differing views on the use of words, like authorisation, approval, certification.
 
JonathanM said:
Do you have a link? Which ground allowed it? Mental distress to the woman?
Click to expand...
No link = no evidence on this forum, but I do recall it.
JonathanM said:
But just imagine how much harder it would be if three Acts still applied :LOL:
Click to expand...
Its a good example of how politically sensitive issues constrain plain language. David steel played a blinder to get it through in 67.
 
motorbiking said:
that is not strictly true.

Again - it is an opinion. that is not a statement of fact.

two RMPs could form an opinion in good faith only to find out that the criteria wasn't met after the event. Nothing in the abortion act criteria is based on fact.
Click to expand...
Apart from the fact an abortion can not proceed without the approval* (signatures) of two doctors.

* "...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...."

I'm still waiting for you to explain why a distinguished and long serving doctor is referring to the conclusion of the two doctor sign off process as 'approval'.

I wonder if Dr Tony Calland (MBE) realises that the word is not in the Act? Have you not told him MBK?

Perhaps he got muddled and meant to say 'authorise'....
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.
Click to expand...
Lol, I'll wait.

(authorise is not in the Act either (y) )
 
Last edited:
Notch7 said:
It won’t be long before you are United with Republic of Ireland, known simply as Ireland
Click to expand...
Poor Notchy, starts to feel quite vindictive because he can't win an argument.
Notchy goes into his little Lord Haw Haw shtick, living in his little house in England, ha ha, we are ok but Ulster is ****ed ******.
 
Last edited:
Vinty said:
How does abortion save a womans life.?
Pregnancy isn't a disease, you know that but i assume you are just trolling again.
Click to expand...
"....Analysis conducted in America into the safety of medical abortion found that the estimated case-fatality rate for medical abortion was 0.8 deaths per 100,000 procedures. This risk was statistically indistinguishable from the risk of death from miscarriage, which was 0.7 per 100,000 miscarriages. Both of these figures were much lower than that associated with childbirth. In 1997, the pregnancy related mortality ratio in America was 12.9 deaths per 100,000 live births...."

3.1 Restricting access to abortion has a significant detrimental impact on women's health. It is estimated that 68,000 women worldwide die each year due to complications of unsafe abortion.[70]

3.2 In Romania, policies restricting access to abortion led to a significant increase in maternal mortality from 20 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1966 to over 100 per 100,000 in 1974 and to 150 per 100,000 in 1983.[71] After the restrictive laws were revoked, the rate of maternal deaths fell rapidly to 40 per 100,000 live births in 1989. It is estimated that around 200,000 Romanian women died between 1966 and 1988 as a result of unsafe abortion.[72]

3.3 The CEMACH Report in 2004 included a commentary on previous reports of deaths caused by illegal abortion. The Report for 1952-54 included 153 deaths due to "abortion", at least 108 of which were illegal. Reports of around 30 deaths per year from illegal abortion continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s. During 1969, the first full year that the 1967 Abortion Act was in force, the number of deaths "clearly due to illegal abortion" fell to 17. The number of deaths due to illegal abortion could have been underestimated because the number of deaths attributed to spontaneous miscarriage also decreased from 1970, in parallel with those attributed to illegal abortion.[73]

3.4 More recently, access to legal abortion in Nepal appears to have helped to reduce the maternal death rate. In 2001, the official maternal mortality rate for Nepal was 539 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Access to abortion was legalised in 2002 and a programme introduced to make safe abortion more widely available. In 2006, the maternal mortality rate in Nepal was 281 per 100,000 live births, a reduction of 48 per cent.[74]

Read more.

68'000 unnecessary deaths, you disgusting bastard. You religious idiots disgust me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top