Vive La France!

[denso13]

you understand that is entirely different to "And if they aren't met then she can't proceed, legally."

More swerving.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

The purpose of certification is to provide evidence document that the opinions required by the law abortion act 1967 as amended, have been addressed.

And if they haven't, they can't sign it, and it can't go ahead.

Because it isn't approved

 

[noseall]

@noseall

A couple of days ago you posted a list of sources which I think was for organisations which use the word approve. You probably posted it a couple of times. I think the post was something like "let's see MBK debunk all these". I can't find it now, though. Could you link me to it or post it again please?

Pages # 103/104

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I'm still trying to clarify where the main points of difference lie.

@noseall @Notch7 @denso13 @carmanmemoranda

What do you think of the following statement. Are you happy with it? MBK has submitted his thoughts.

The purpose of certification is to provide evidence that the law has been complied with, by ensuring that medical practitioners make a legal declaration that they have formed their opinion in good faith.

The difference is the way mbk interprets the law

The doctors are required as part of the process. If they can't sign it, the process can't go ahead.

Approval is needed.

 

[denso13]

But simply as standalone statement, are you saying that you agree with this:

"The purpose of certification is to provide evidence that the law has been complied with, by ensuring that medical practitioners make a legal declaration that they have formed their opinion in good faith."

Quite long winded but I've got no particular objections to it, as far as it goes. I think you know where the differences lie.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

And you want me to repeat those back to you? Why? Are we in nursery school?

No. I think you either agree with them, or you don't.

 

[JonathanM]

And you want me to repeat those back to you? Why? Are we in nursery school?

No. I think you either agree with them, or you don't.

Below was what I was responding to. I'm still not sure what he wanted, then.

Tell me - can you repeat back to me what those highlighted words say?

 

[JonathanM]

Quite long winded but I've got no particular objections to it, as far as it goes. I think you know where the differences lie.

I'm not sure what the bit in bold means. Do you mean the differences between this version and the one MBK amended. Or between this version and what you believe. If the latter could you explain a bit more, I've lost track a bit of the arguments. My purpose is to try to find where there might be consensus and to highlight the differences. Ideally, just amend or add to it like MBK did!

 

[noseall]

Below was what I was responding to. I'm still not sure what he wanted, then.

When you read them, what does it say? Are you reading the word 'approve' or not? For all I know, folk may be seeing something different from the word 'approve'. Dunno?

 

[denso13]

If the latter could you explain a bit more.

The differences lie in what the law means. Some think it means approval, it is defined as another word for certify, some think it doesn't mean approval simply because that actual word doesn't appear in the text of the law.

However, in an attempt to explain what the law means, MBK's inserted "document" in to your suggested statement. That word doesn't actually appear in the words of the law. Does that mean it should be removed, although it just an everyday description he is using?

 

[noseall]

MBK got his nickers in a twist, when I pointed out UK law to him, way back on page 29. He erupted with abuse and waffle (at first) and must have done some serious Googling and slapping of face (after). He's since tried to save face by attempting to discredit what I said, by picking through the words I used. The only one he has clung onto, is the word 'approve'. He thinks that because they don't say it in the Act, that it does not apply. Since then I have shown numerous examples of people i.e. solicitors, journalists, doctors nurses and midwives, even a Parliamentary report, referring to the end of the two doctor process as 'approval'.

Go to page 29 and read through a page or so. MBK's post #440 is brilliant, because he even highlights a sentence that says the doctors are approving (authorising) the abortion. He just does not understand the text, lol.

 

[JonathanM]

The differences lie in what the law means. Some think it means approval, it is defined as another word for certify, some think it doesn't mean approval simply because that actual word doesn't appear in the text of the law.

However, in an attempt to explain what the law means, MBK's inserted "document" in to your suggested statement. That word doesn't actually appear in the words of the law. Does that mean it should be removed, although it just an everyday description he is using?

TBH, I don't see the reason for MBK's changes. It still means pretty much the same to me. I was hoping if we got a couple of versions side by side there might be a light bulb moment and consensus would break out.

The statement I posted is actually the official government explanation of the purpose of the certificate of opinion from a government consultation document on abortion.

 

[JonathanM]

MBK got his nickers in a twist, when I pointed out UK law to him, way back on page 29. He erupted with abuse and waffle (at first) and must have done some serious Googling and slapping of face. He's since tried to save face by attempting to discredit what I said, by picking through the words I used. The only one he has clung onto, is the word 'approve'. He thinks that because they don't say it in the Act, that it does not apply. Since then I have shown numerous examples of people i.e. solicitors, journalists, doctors nurses and midwives, even a Parliamentary report, referring to the two doctor process as 'approval'.

Go to page 29 and read through a page or so. MBK's post #440 is brilliant, because he even highlights a sentence that says the doctors are approving the abortion. He just does not understand the text, lol.

So are you saying that most of the last 100 pages has been about MBK trying to cover up from initially misunderstanding the rules on abortion in the UK, and you four trying to make him admit he was wrong?

 

[noseall]

So are you saying that most of the last 100 pages has been about MBK trying to cover up from initially misunderstanding the rules on abortion in the UK, and you four trying to make him admit he was wrong?

Read it yourself. His responses are telling.

 

[denso13]

The statement I posted is actually the official government explanation of the purpose of the certificate of opinion from a government consultation document on abortion.

No argument from me on that.