Vive La France!

[space junkie]

Except where the criteria in the Abortion Act are not met.

I thought I'd adequately covered that scenario:

The current regime is purely elective. There is currently no obligation to choose to have an abortion, nor is there any denial of the opportunity for those that elect for the procedure, within the current framework.

 

[noseall]

Vincent Argent, you say...wasn't he a hitman in Pulp Fiction?

Possibly..?

 

[noseall]

The make it easier lot. Fact is if some one wants one it is very easy.

Reasonably.

It gets more complicated or time consuming, once the two doctor approval process is reached. For some women it's easy. For others not so...

2.1 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.

 

[Odds]

Possibly..?

Sounds like it to me - 'Doctor Argent will see you now' springs the classic tune "hold your head up" to mind. Apt, dontcha think?

 

[noseall]

Apt, dontcha think?

Que?

 

[Odds]

Que?

Argent - Hold your head up...no? Oh well, tis monday.

 

[space junkie]

It was the only article I could find. It reviewed a decade of polling. Opinion doesn't seem to have changed since. That new poll from YouGov, posted above, shows that women still favour more restrictive rules on abortion, by the same 20 point margin, over men.

[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
Most of the links to the source material in the Guardian article are dead links, not surprising because the article is 10 years old, reporting on polling results over 10 years ago. So to ivestigate any questions posed, the number and status of the respondents, the reason for the poll, the commercial inetrest behind the poll, etc, are all hidden.

But to address your point on changes over time, I disagree.
One of the polls (2013) presented by Martin Robbins in the Guardian suggested that polls show the following results on making access to abortion more restrictive:
Males: 26% in favour. Females: 43% in favour.
Whereas the poll presented by Notch7 (2023) showed the results in making access more restrictive was:
Males 15% in favour, Females: 33% in favour.

That's quite a shift in social attitudes over a 10 year period. A shift to supporting less restrictive access to abortion.
Yet the reports are all couched in terms of making access more restrictive, despite the obvious trend in social attitudes.
Why write the conclusions couched in terms of making access more restricitve, when the results show quite the opposite, that the majority of people think the current regime is about right, or even too restrictive?
Polls, including YouGov polls, are mostly initiated on a comercial basis. Who is initiating these polls and why?
To draw a parallel to brexit polls (sorry I mentioned it), the polls are only ever re-run when a different response, or a reaffirmation of the previous response, is desired.

To repeat my earlier question, why tinker with the edges of a policy that has the majority support of the nation?

I noticed a similar comment, reported today, about another policy:
"Last year, Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper accused the government of "tinkering at the edges" in its immigration policy with the Albania advert campaign."

Home Office launches 'stop the boats' ad campaign in Vietnam

The government says an increasing proportion of small boat crossings are made by Vietnamese nationals.

www.bbc.com

IMO "tinkering at the edges" of a policy is done for ignoble reasons. It's usualy a ploy, because meeting the policy head-on is recognised as doomed to failure.

You can call it paranoia if you wish.

 

[space junkie]

Nice speech, but irrelevant.

What gripes most GP's doctors, midwives and those seeking abortion in the UK, is the two doctors sign-off/approval thing. I pointed this fact out to MBK on page 30. He spent hundreds of pages either saying it was a lie, or not needed or just waffling about UK law.

Here is what one prominent doctor said, who incidentally, is all for abolishing the two doctor approval process (for early abortions)...

2.1 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".

MBK still thinks it's not approval/authorisation, bless him, lol.

I'm in full agreement with Tony Calland.
I've already said that my attitude to abortion is more liberal than most on here.
It's an elective procedure, there's no obligation for the woman to have an abortion, nor should there be any obligation to go full term.
I think the current restrictions could be relaxed.
It ought to be a right of every pregnant woman to have an abortion if they so choose, within the current framework.
In the UK, currently, they do not have that right.

Doctors approval is not required if I wanted to cover my body with tattoos.
If I wanted piercings all over my body, doctors approval is not required.
Dentists approval is not requiired if I wanted all my teeth out.

I suspect there are many examples where potentially life-changing decisions do not require the approval of one doctor, never mind two.

 

[motorbiking]

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.

You are still missing the point that until 1991, irrelevant of what the abortion act 1967 said, there were only two criteria that made abortion legal. The child was not viable or it was done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.

Imagine a viable Foetus in 1980:

(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
Legal under the Abortion Act 1969 : illegal under Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929

(c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated;
Legal under the Abortion Act 1969 : illegal under Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929

(d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.”
Legal under the Abortion Act 1969 : illegal under Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929

What is the point of being protected from the offences against the person act, under the grounds in the abortion act, if the governing law states there are only 2 lawful criteria. Not viable or saving the mother's life.

 

[noseall]

Males: 26% in favour. Females: 43% in favour (of more restrictive abortion measures).

A bit of an ambiguous, misleading nonsense stat. 'More restrictive' could mean knocking one day off the gestation cut-off point, lol. Largely irrelevant when you consider at what (gestation) point 99% of abortions occur.

What is telling is that overall, 87% of people in the UK are in favour of abortion.

 

[blup]

How can a measure of deaths related to abortions be a coefficient of registered childbirths?

Its not a formula its a statistic, one of many.

 

[Odds]

Can it be assumed space-junk is a mot-approved sockpuppet since he hasn't charged in to demand its 'name-rank-and number'?

 

[space junkie]

Males: 26% in favour. Females: 43% in favour (of more restrictive abortion measures).

A bit of an ambiguous, misleading nonsense stat. 'More restrictive' could mean knocking one day off the gestation cut-off point, lol. Largely irrelevant when you consider at what (gestation) point 99% of abortions occur.

What is telling is that overall, 87% of people in the UK are in favour of abortion.

Exactly, the results are presented in such a way to apparently support more restrictive access to abortion, even though the actual results indicate the opposite.
So why do they even appear?
And they indicate a societal trend to less restricitve access to abortion over a 10 year period.
So why is it even relevant, other than tinkering around the edges?

 

[space junkie]

Its not a formula its a statistic, one of many.

Call it what you want. It doesn't alter the fact that a measure of abortion related deaths, in comparison to childbirth, is meaningless, for the reasons I've mentioned, and given in more detail in the article.

 

[noseall]

It doesn't change all the other things you were wrong about

Correct.

He even put up two posts himself describing the approval/authorisation of abortions (pg 30). He then went on to twist and squirm for several more pages in a pathetic attempt to describe his alternative meaning of the words, lol.

Fruit loop.