Vive La France!

[denso13]

The danger with quoting from Parliamentary reports is that they are not always correct, or at least they might paraphrase or simplify the actual law.

Yes they might. But laws mean things, and there is nothing wrong with taking an ordinary meaning from them. In this case doctors (RMP's) form their opinion on whether the criteria contained in the law are met. If the are, then happy days, the abortion proceeds as it does in the vast majority of cases.

If the criteria are not met then it cannot proceed. legally. That, in ordinary language means approval or not. To ague that the word approval isn't in the act is just silliness.

 

[Notch7]

The danger with quoting from Parliamentary reports is that they are not always correct

If that’s true, you need to provide evidence

Otherwise you are just dismissing something because it doesn’t support your argument

 

[Notch7]

Last I checked - Parliament makes laws and parliament change them. Even constitutional ones like the bill of rights.. introduced by parliament.

So what parliament reversed abortion laws in America?

 

[JonathanM]

If that’s true, you need to provide evidence

Otherwise you are just dismissing something because it doesn’t support your argument

I did provide evidence in that same post. About the 14 year sentence.

 

[Notch7]

y'all constantly swerve the moral argument of whether it's right to approve abortion, never mind how legal it is

I’ve provided the moral argument here many times.

1) making abortion illegal doesn’t lower abortion rates
2) making abortion illegal forces women to travel to get abortion
3) making abortion illegal takes away women’s opportunities and forces them into a lifetime of poverty
4) a foetus can’t survive without the mother, so you can’t remove the rights of the woman to choose
5) forcing a woman to have a baby is preventing that woman to have a baby later in life when financially stable and in a stable relationship.

You are welcome to provide a counter argument, Vinty has avoided answering any of the above in any meaningful way

 

[Notch7]

When I see a Parliamentary report which says a form "must" be signed, my first questions are why and what would happen if it wasn't signed

It says so on form HSA1

That’s not a parliamentary report.

 

[JonathanM]

Yes they might. But laws mean things, and there is nothing wrong with taking an ordinary meaning from them. In this case doctors (RMP's) form their opinion on whether the criteria contained in the law are met. If the are, then happy days, the abortion proceeds as it does in the vast majority of cases.

If the criteria are not met then it cannot proceed. legally. That, in ordinary language means approval or not. To ague that the word approval isn't in the act is just silliness.

TBH, I think this whole debate about the meaning of the word "approve" has become tiresome and silly. It's been going on for 60 pages now. It means that posters who have wanted to discuss other elements of this topic have been drowned out.

It might be a good time for both sides to agree to disagree. Whoever goes first wins the moral high ground!

But again, I would say, if I want to help people to obtain a better understanding of the structure of the law in the UK, particularly around the actual offences, then I will. My small number of posts are unrelated to the discussion about the meaning of the word "approve".

 

[Notch7]

I did provide evidence in that same post. About the 14 year sentence.

Only in terms of the sentence.

You are quibbling about difference between 14 years and life

Not whether it’s legal or not.


It’s a false argument to discredit parliamentary reports in their entirety, like you’ve done here:

When I see a Parliamentary report which says a form "must" be signed, my first questions are why and what would happen if it wasn't signed.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

If you ever find yourself in court for any reason.. I'd love to see you there with a dictionary instead of actual laws.

Interestingly in most court rooms they have (at least) 2 legal professionals, arguing against each other, both using the laws.

Very rarely is it as cut and dried as you appear to think it is.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Yes they might. But laws mean things, and there is nothing wrong with taking an ordinary meaning from them. In this case doctors (RMP's) form their opinion on whether the criteria contained in the law are met. If the are, then happy days, the abortion proceeds as it does in the vast majority of cases.

If the criteria are not met then it cannot proceed. legally. That, in ordinary language means approval or not. To ague that the word approval isn't in the act is just silliness.

MBK has actually agreed that, and is still trying to swerve and backtrack

 

[denso13]

TBH, I think this whole debate about the meaning of the word "approve" has become tiresome and silly

You surely don't mean you should be the only allowed to discuss what you want?

It means that posters who have wanted to discuss other elements of this topic have been drowned out.

I don't think that's correct, but perhaps others just want to discuss something else.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

y'all constantly swerve the moral argument of whether it's right to approve abortion, never mind how legal it is.
Stuff your two doctors in a pipe n smoke 'em.

A very simple question.

But every individual case is unique to the person involved. Impossible to answer without taking all the facts in each individual case into account.

A few examples, rape, incest, medical issues.

 

[JonathanM]

Only in terms of the sentence.

You are quibbling about difference between 14 years and life

Not whether it’s legal or not.

My point was that a report which is being heavily relied on as being the ultimate authority, contains at least one schoolboy error.

It’s a false argument to discredit parliamentary reports in their entirety, like you’ve done here:

The point I was making is that words like "must" and "wrong" need further exploration. Why must something be done. Why is something wrong. Basically, what is the legal basis. It's a much wider point, I suppose.

 

[Odds]

I’ve provided the moral argument here many times.

1) making abortion illegal doesn’t lower abortion rates
2) making abortion illegal forces women to travel to get abortion
3) making abortion illegal takes away women’s opportunities and forces them into a lifetime of poverty
4) a foetus can’t survive without the mother, so you can’t remove the rights of the woman to choose
5) forcing a woman to have a baby is preventing that woman to have a baby later in life when financially stable and in a stable relationship.

You are welcome to provide a counter argument, Vinty has avoided answering any of the above in any meaningful way

Better birth control - better sex education - abstinence.
Is having a low birth rate a bad thing?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

TBH, I think this whole debate about the meaning of the word "approve" has become tiresome and silly. It's been going on for 60 pages now. It means that posters who have wanted to discuss other elements of this topic have been drowned out.

It might be a good time for both sides to agree to disagree. Whoever goes first wins the moral high ground!

But again, I would say, if I want to help people to obtain a better understanding of the structure of the law in the UK, particularly around the actual offences, then I will. My small number of posts are unrelated to the discussion about the meaning of the word "approve".

Only because the "legal expert" keeps trying to deny facts. A fact he has admitted is correct.