I was responding to brig
I was not talking about the procedure itself just the certification
Vive La France!
- Thread starter noseall
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,668
- Reaction score
- 2,341
- Country
Then they just wouldn't certify it. They don't have to.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,668
- Reaction score
- 2,341
- Country
Same answer, they aren't approving whether the woman has made the correct decision.
I rather doubt many women choose abortion as a result of fear of childbirth.
The vast majority just don’t want a baby at that time in their life.
Sponsored Links
That's a well and good. Very noble - rousing speech.
However, as we are talking about abortion, then all the reassurance in the world is not going to matter.
It will be the doctors job in this case to assess whether the abortion should proceed under the terms of the Act. If so, the doctor will approve it via a HSA1 form.
Yes, a woman has the right to seek an abortion. She can self refer if she likes.
It's a doctors job to follow the terms of the act, otherwise it is unlawful. Following the terms of the act means forming an opinion in good faith, along with a second doctor.
They are then required to sign and date a HSA1 form, thus approving the abortion.
Whilst seeking abortion is the choice of the woman, the onus is on the doctor to follow the terms of the Act. There is no choice if the abortion is to lawfully proceed.
Last edited:
Eh?
Do you think a woman can get an abortion without approval from two doctors?
Then oddly in your next breath you say a doctor might disapprove based on moral grounds.
Make your mind up.
It actually increases death rates amongst pregnant women.
Disapprove on personal moral grounds but nonetheless certify it on a medical basis, the two aren’t inconsistent.
You said:
“I didn't say that: I said that
“I didn't say that: I said that
No you didn’t, you’ve digitally altered your own quote. Not something I can approve of.
The original is there for all to see: I put something in square brackets, to clarify.
Something else to get your knickers in a twist over though
I'm not sure where you are going with this, but a doctor can refuse to approve an abortion based upon his beliefs and conscientiously object - correct.
However, what is irrefutable in terms of the act - if a doctor wishes to continue with the whole approval process, he MUST agree with another doctor that they have come to their decision (in good faith), to proceed with the abortion and that they have signed and dated the HSA1 form - at which point the abortion is approved.
Last edited:
It's a really odd argument he's been putting forth, in that he seems to try and implore that the doctors agreeing to the abortion (in good faith etc) is not an approval and that it's either one or the other.
In reality its one THEN the other. The doctors agree that the abortion should go ahead, an agreement they have reached in good faith, sign and date the HSA1 form, THUS approving the abortion.
Abortion Is destroying a foetus. Removing access to abortion kills women or forces them to seek unsafe abortions.
When has restricting access to abortion EVER had a positive effect?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,446
- Reaction score
- 2,647
- Country
I can tell you from first hand experience they absolutely do. For my own kids there was a risk of genetic disorder, which could be identified by sampling the amniotic fluid.Doctors are not allowed to make a moral judgement
how do you think the law would work if they were allowed that?
.
'Conscientious objection': when doctors' beliefs are a barrier to abortion
As a report highlights the ruinous impact of denying abortion, two medics offer opposing views on the role of personal beliefwww.theguardian.com
Im not sure Christians have any moral superiority to make judgements....Catholic priests springs to mind
My then wife and I were under no illusion that the hospital were “pro life” should we test positive.
Which was a nice amount of pressure that we didn’t need.
Sponsored Links
