|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 21, 2013 16:59:53 GMT
That's OK, no problems
We will abort it
It's quite legal, no probs
So says the astonishingly arrogant DPP Keir Starmer
Since when did a bludy appointed official decide what is within and without the law?
An unelected official responsible only to himself!
This is really incredible!
He is surely usurping the roles of
A. Parliament
and
B. Judges who must interpret the law
I suppose that he will shortly announce that burglary is no longer a criminal offence
Let us hope that concerned groups , (such as Christians - does no-one else give a bugger?) challenge this bureaucrat by taking the doctors who offered abortion on this basis to law
Landmark decisions pass by without comment and cause social disintegration that we witness all around, many of them made by jobsworth bureaucrats such as Starmer
Astonishing
|
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Oct 21, 2013 23:51:02 GMT
That's OK, no problems We will abort it It's quite legal, no probs So says the astonishingly arrogant DPP Keir Starmer ... Astonishing But you do know that he didn't say that at all, don't you? (Of course you do! You do what you do!) For my part, I'm in favour of a woman's right to choose whether she has a baby or not. I'm not in favour of her being able to choose according to the gender of the baby, unless there's a medical reason that might compromise her or the baby's health or survival. But I'm not a doctor, or a distinguished lawyer. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 22, 2013 10:37:30 GMT
Cleefy's never been very good at giving links to his sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 22, 2013 11:58:23 GMT
But you do know that he didn't say that at all, don't you? (Of course you do! You do what you do!) Far more important than what he said is the import of what he said- which is that abortions due to the gender of the child are legal For my part, I'm in favour of a woman's right to choose whether she has a baby or not. I'm not in favour of her being able to choose according to the gender of the baby, unless there's a medical reason that might compromise her or the baby's health or survival. But I'm not a doctor, or a distinguished lawyer. You must be aware of the contradiction in your stated psoition. If you approve of a 'woman's right to choose' (no such choice exists in law), then it should follow that you have no objection to her exercising that choice for whatever reason she sees fit. |
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Oct 22, 2013 19:26:23 GMT
For my part, I'm in favour of a woman's right to choose whether she has a baby or not. I'm not in favour of her being able to choose according to the gender of the baby, unless there's a medical reason that might compromise her or the baby's health or survival. But I'm not a doctor, or a distinguished lawyer. You must be aware of the contradiction in your stated psoition. If you approve of a 'woman's right to choose' (no such choice exists in law), then it should follow that you have no objection to her exercising that choice for whatever reason she sees fit. Not quite such a contradiction as you seem to think. I wouldn’t like a woman choosing on the basis of gender except in the circumstances I specified; and if they confided in me I might try some persuasion. However, if they were dead-set on going ahead, who am I to say they don’t have the right? I certainly don’t have it! I’m in favour of the woman’s right to choose, because there’s no-one else who validly can. Anyway, if a woman really doesn’t want to give birth, she’s not necessarily going to tell the doctor precisely why, if she thinks that they’ll refuse to terminate a pregnancy on the basis she presents. Tho often an idealist on others, I’m a realist or pragmatist on this matter. If a woman really doesn’t want to give birth, she usually won’t. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 22, 2013 22:28:40 GMT
This is perhaps a more accurate account of what Keir Starmer said: ...Take the decision on sex-selective abortion, in which he ruled not to prosecute two doctors who had been had by a media sting operation (two journalists, pretending to be carrying a female foetus, asked two doctors for an abortion on those grounds). "In order to make the sting work, the undercover team asked for an abortion based on gender, but then immediately mixed in other reasons. So in both cases, there was reference to previous failed female pregnancies. Chromosomal defects were referenced. In one of the cases, the doctor was told there was a test in France.
"She said, 'What is this test? And how pregnant were you?' And the journalist said, 'I was in France. I was eight weeks pregnant.' When the doctor was then arrested, she said, 'I didn't believe her. I don't think there is a test at that point of gestation. I just assumed she was lying and wanted an abortion for some other reason'."
It's a fascinating case – a sex-selective abortion charge would never have stuck because the journalists were just too sloppy, but the CPS could have charged the doctors with not asking enough questions. "Well, obviously, when we got to that stage of the analysis, we called for all available guidance. Because those prosecutions are better if you can say, 'there is a very clearly understood set of professional rules, that everybody knows you must follow, which you did or didn't follow. But the guidance is very limited, and it didn't indicate even how you carry out the assessment."... |
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 23, 2013 10:06:02 GMT
Not quite such a contradiction as you seem to think. I wouldn’t like a woman choosing on the basis of gender except in the circumstances I specified; and if they confided in me I might try some persuasion. Fair enough. Not an entirely 'woman's right to choose' then However, if they were dead-set on going ahead, who am I to say they don’t have the right? I certainly don’t have it! You have as much right as anyone else in a democracy I’m in favour of the woman’s right to choose, because there’s no-one else who validly can. Nonsense. They do not have the 'right to choose'. It is the province of others to decide Anyway, if a woman really doesn’t want to give birth, she’s not necessarily going to tell the doctor precisely why, if she thinks that they’ll refuse to terminate a pregnancy on the basis she presents. Agree Tho often an idealist on others, I’m a realist or pragmatist on this matter. If a woman really doesn’t want to give birth, she usually won’t. Agree |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 23, 2013 13:37:07 GMT
...If a woman really doesn’t want to give birth, she usually won’t. Agree That being so, it surely makes (pragmatic) sense that her not-giving-birth should be enabled to be as safe as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 23, 2013 20:10:51 GMT
That being so, it surely makes (pragmatic) sense that her not-giving-birth should be enabled to be as safe as possible. Indeed I submit Pragmatically that is entirely sensible. I have no argument to refute such pragmatism |
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Oct 24, 2013 23:19:15 GMT
What a softy!
|
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 25, 2013 7:27:39 GMT
Not at all  Principle oft o'erides Pragmatism |
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Oct 25, 2013 23:02:01 GMT
So you agree with the pragmatism, but still stick to your principles?
Cop out?
|
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 26, 2013 7:46:19 GMT
So you agree with the pragmatism, but still stick to your principles? Cop out? I do not recall agreeing with such pragmatism - it is simply difficult to argue against on pragmatic grounds |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 26, 2013 8:22:55 GMT
You agreed with aqua that If a woman really doesn’t want to give birth, she usually won’t.
That being so, what do you think should be done about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 27, 2013 13:24:39 GMT
You agreed with aqua that If a woman really doesn’t want to give birth, she usually won’t.That being so, what do you think should be done about it? Much Crminally outlawing abortion (except in those cases wheer the life of the mother is at risk in giving birth) Offering substantial asistance to mothers who are legally obliged to continue with unwanted pregnancy including guaranteed adoption |
|
