Vive La France!

[carmanmemoranda]

what facts?

You wont find them relying on a dictionary either..

But they both arguing the same laws from different angles.

So, it's not as simple as you always try to make out.

The fact, you agreed,

she finds 2 that think otherwise or she accepts that she doesn't meet the criteria.

It can't proceed if they don't approve, agree, say yes, sign form or any other term you want to use.

 

[motorbiking]

You don't think there are any medical considerations at all?

I'm sure there are dozens. But they aren't the basis of the abortion act

Oh dear, you’ve still not read and absorbed form HSA1

A B E are medical

You are welcome to try and claim “risk to life” is a legal judgement

considering their opinion is the judgement
Signing is the act of approval

If Drs don’t sign then the abortion doesn’t happen
Why? A = because it’s not been approved.

Can an abortion happen legally without form HSA1 (excluding emergency) A = no

No approval no abortion.



Try reading the form more carefully, maybe get your legal books out again, you seem awfully rusty

https://www.bpas.org/media/zm1dqpgb/hsa1-form.pdf

how could he make any medical assessment without examining the woman?

 

[Notch7]

Theres been an element of repetition but not low quality, most other posters have plenty of other threads to keep them busy

I think this debate has been very useful, it’s a difficult subject and we live in difficult times where our rights are being taken by right wing populist govts making power grabs. Rwanda scheme is a perfect example, The govt have no mandate for it

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You don't think there are any medical considerations at all?

You would think that a doctor takes that as his priority, and then moves on to legally.

We all know they do.

 

[JonathanM]

Theres been an element of repetition but not low quality

Correct. It is actually the huge amount of repetition that I was complaining about. The arguments were fine for the first few pages. Having them repeated endlessly for the next 50 is the problem.

 

[JonathanM]

I think this debate has been very useful, it’s a difficult subject and we live in difficult times where our rights are being taken by right wing populist govts making power grabs. Rwanda scheme is a perfect example, The govt have no mandate for it

This thread has been extremely useful. There are lots of interesting posts giving plenty to think about. 50 pages of argument about the meaning of the word "approve" has distracted from that, though.

 

[motorbiking]

But they both arguing the same laws from different angles.

So, it's not as simple as you always try to make out.

The fact, you agreed,


It can't proceed if they don't approve, agree, say yes, sign form or any other term you want to use.

except providing an opinion and an approval are very different things. You could be legally accountable for approving something that is wrong, you cannot be held responsible for giving an opinion in good faith, that turns out to be wrong.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

except providing an opinion and an approval are very different things. You could be legally accountable for approving something that is wrong, you cannot be held responsible for giving an opinion in good faith, that turns out to be wrong.

Stop the swerving.

It can't proceed without the 2 doctors, you've admitted it.

Either they agree and approve. Or they don't and it can't go ahead

 

[noseall]

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.

Swerve? Do we? What's your boeuf?

 

[noseall]

Stop the swerving.

It can't proceed without the 2 doctors, you've admitted it.

Either they agree and approve. Or they don't and it can't go ahead

I don't think he is swerving with the post above.
He's merely stating they are two distinct processes which they are.
There is a declaration on the form which has to be signed and dated and then sent. At this point the abortion is approved

 

[motorbiking]

Its not swerving.

Stop the swerving.

It can't proceed without the 2 doctors, you've admitted it.

I've never argued anything to the contrary I have since post 285, stated that 2 doctors are required to give an opinion in good faith that the criteria are met. I have and still maintain this is not an approval, the requirement to certify the opinion is not an approval and the doctor is explicitly told he is not certifying that abortion is the best course of action.

I don't think he is swerving with the post above.
He's merely stating they are two distinct processes which they are.
There is a declaration on the form which has to be signed and dated and then sent. At this point the abortion is approved

agree except your last sentence.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Its not swerving.
I've never argued anything to the contrary I have since post 285, stated that 2 doctors are required to give an opinion in good faith that the criteria are met. I have and still maintain this is not an approval, the requirement to certify the opinion is not an approval and the doctor is explicitly told he is not certifying that abortion is the best course of action.
agree except your last sentence.

so it is swerving

Doesnt matter what term you want to use, it cannot proceed until the requirements are met, by 2 doctors. Approval.

 

[blup]

Correct. It is actually the huge amount of repetition that I was complaining about. The arguments were fine for the first few pages. Having them repeated endlessly for the next 50 is the problem.

Speaking as someone who was held to account for quite reasonably maintaining an argument about the speaker's political bias over the snp amendment, it is impossible when faced with a factually incorrect counter argument to concede it is correct, and, on this occasion at least, I am with MBK on the narrow certify/approve argument. Normally unduly repetitive threads are locked by moderators, but they seem to have been permanently furloughed, or maybe they acknowldge it is an important subject.

 

[noseall]

Its not swerving.
I've never argued anything to the contrary I have since post 285, stated that 2 doctors are required to give an opinion in good faith that the criteria are met. I have and still maintain this is not an approval, the requirement to certify the opinion is not an approval and the doctor is explicitly told he is not certifying that abortion is the best course of action.
agree except your last sentence.

Disagree all you like. But when it is published in a Parliamentary abortion report as well as documented a trillion times elsewhere, including legal articles, doctors and midwives journals, then it seems it is only you that fails to understand that it is an approval.

 

[noseall]

Speaking as someone who was held to account for quite reasonably maintaining an argument about the speaker's political bias over the snp amendment, it is impossible when faced with a factually incorrect counter argument to concede it is correct, and, on this occasion at least, I am with MBK on the narrow certify/approve argument. Normally unduly repetitive threads are locked by moderators, but they seem to have been permanently furloughed, or maybe they acknowldge it is an important subject.

Utter waffle.