Vive La France!

[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.

Ah, but MBK will tell you that government explanations are not the law.

 

[noseall]

Ah, but MBK will tell you that government explanations are not the law.

Even official words and explanations from the very body that writes and passes the laws are wrong, according to MBK.

Lol.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

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?

Thats pretty much it. Not trying to MAKE him admit anything.

I'm happy watching a "legal expert" tie himself in knots avoiding admitting it.

 

[noseall]

DELETED: double post sorry

 

[noseall]

Not trying to MAKE him admit anything.

I doubt anyone would approve.

 

[noseall]

It would be if the following were on the form.

I hereby approve..

But sadly I couldn't find the word approve anywhere on the form.

So that we are clear signing Form HSA1 is required by sec 3 of The Abortion Regulations 1991 and its existence or lack of has no impact on Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967.

Lol, you'll accept that the doctors are 'authorising' the abortion rather than 'approving' the abortion even though neither words are used in Section 1 of the Abortion Act.

Hilarious.

Personally I'm with the Parliamentary report, i.e. that 'approve' is more accurate.

 

[noseall]

its nothing more than a document required to ensure the opinion has been made. it has no legal weight on the abortion act. In fact all the abortion act says is that the Secretary of State must create a mechanism for documenting the opinion and that wilful failure to follow it is an offence subject to 14 years... life?... oh no wait a fine.

Irrelevant that it is merely a document. Irrelevant that it's merely the doctors opinion. Irrelevant who gets fined. Irrelevant what words are used, regards this:

.... without both these criteria, i.e. the two doctors sign off and their honest (good faith) opinion, the abortion will not proceed. Therefore the abortion is not approved/authorised (neither word is in the act).

Is that difficult?

 

[blup]

Thats pretty much it. Not trying to MAKE him admit anything.

I'm happy watching a "legal expert" tie himself in knots avoiding admitting it.

LOL Its a cover up now, public inquiry anyone?

 

[Notch7]

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?

No

MBK tried using his "Im a clever lawyer" tactic to disprove the point that 2 doctors are required to approve an abortion

and he has spent the last 100 pages using every dishonest debating trick in the book from ad hominems, strawman, non sequitur, misrepresentation of facts etc etc in a vain attempt to dig himself out the hole he put himself in

 

[motorbiking]

Even official words and explanations from the very body that writes and passes the laws are wrong, according to MBK.

Lol.

The science and technology committee are law makers? Well I didn’t know that.

Oh wait. They aren’t. You are wrong. Again

 

[motorbiking]

Ah, but MBK will tell you that government explanations are not the law.

And they also aren’t government explanations. Nothing in the guidelines says approve.

 

[motorbiking]

Lol, you'll accept that the doctors are 'authorising' the abortion rather than 'approving' the abortion even though neither words are used in Section 1 of the Abortion Act.

Hilarious.

Personally I'm with the Parliamentary report, i.e. that 'approve' is more accurate.

Than the actual law? Give your head a shake.

 

[motorbiking]

No

MBK tried using his "Im a clever lawyer" tactic to disprove the point that 2 doctors are required to approve an abortion

and he has spent the last 100 pages using every dishonest debating trick in the book from ad hominems, strawman, non sequitur, misrepresentation of facts etc etc in a vain attempt to dig himself out the hole he put himself in

You forgot to call me racist

I’ve quoted the laws - what is dishonest about that?

You lost the argument and you are too stubborn to accept it. I really hope you read nosalls report in full because it blows a hole through your opinion on unborn children.

 

[noseall]

The science and technology committee are law makers? Well I didn’t know that.

Oh wait. They aren’t. You are wrong. Again

You do accept the word authorise, even though it isn't mentioned in Sec1 of thd Act.
Why is that?

 

[noseall]

Than the actual law? Give your head a shake.

You do accept that the doctors are authorising, right? Even though it's not mentioned in the Act.