That is one way ensure sure you have a boy....

[VaticanAssassin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ing-illegal-abortions-no-questions-asked.html


Doctors at British clinics have been secretly filmed agreeing to terminate foetuses purely because they are either male or female. Clinicians admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions even though it is illegal to conduct such “sex-selection” procedures.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.”

 

[TexasWife25]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ing-illegal-abortions-no-questions-asked.html


Doctors at British clinics have been secretly filmed agreeing to terminate foetuses purely because they are either male or female. Clinicians admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions even though it is illegal to conduct such “sex-selection” procedures.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.”

You have to give the reason you want an abortion in the UK?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

You have to give the reason you want an abortion in the UK?

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(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

 

[TexasWife25]

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(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

so thats a yes?

I should clarify, I dont believe in sex selection .. but I do believe its a womans right to choose. Just because I think her reasons are idiotic, doesnt mean I should be allowed to make the decision for her

 

[John Doe]

so thats a yes?

Seriously?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

so thats a yes?

Well I am not a British law scholar but the way I read this is two people must agree that the abortion falls under one of the four categories.

Fucking British, with their bad food and blatant displays of racism at soccer games and now this!

 

[TexasWife25]

*shrug* I dont understand why any woman would admit to wanting an abortion because of the sex of the child .. lying seems like the way to go ..

 

[Sean]

If someone could point me to the section of the law that says it's illegal to offer an abortion for gender reasons I'll give you lots of money. Because it doesn't exist.

 

[bg23]

If someone could point me to the section of the law that says it's illegal to offer an abortion for gender reasons I'll give you lots of money. Because it doesn't exist.

From what I understand, British law is very similar to Australian law. That is to say, it is technically illegal but for the reasons Vatass cited above. So as long as a woman claims that the abortion is necessary to prevent risk or harm to her "physical or mental health", that abortion is legal. The definition of mental or physical harm is of course pretty open to interpretation, reasons such as depression, etc, are cited regularly.

This nebulous concept of legal/illegal allows the government (at least in Australia) to maintain a stance of not legalising abortions, while at the same time allowing the majority of women who need them to still have the option.

Thus, if a woman is obtaining an abortion on the grounds that "the child is male" or "the child is female" I am fairly certain that would make it an illegal abortion, unless they can somehow stretch the idea of male/female children harming their mother in some way, and even then I always thought the concept of abortion for sex selection was illegal.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

If someone could point me to the section of the law that says it's illegal to offer an abortion for gender reasons I'll give you lots of money. Because it doesn't exist.

Well someone need to let your health Secretary know that

Gender selection would not fall under A-D above and additionally the article states;

"Abortions for non-medical reasons are legal until 24 weeks, but terminations on grounds of sex of the foetus are illegal under the 1967 Abortion Act."

But as you are British please inform us oh great one

 

[bg23]

Well someone need to let your health Secretary know that

Gender selection would not fall under A-D above and additionally the article states;

"Abortions for non-medical reasons are legal until 24 weeks, but terminations on grounds of sex of the foetus are illegal under the 1967 Abortion Act."

But as you are British please inform us oh great one

Non medical reasons - Is that true? If so doesn't it more or less make provisions A-D moot?

I have to admit I'm very rusty on abortion law.

 

[Sean]

Well someone need to let your health Secretary know that

Gender selection would not fall under A-D above and additionally the article states;

"Abortions for non-medical reasons are legal until 24 weeks, but terminations on grounds of sex of the foetus are illegal under the 1967 Abortion Act."

But as you are British please inform us oh great one

Try the 1990 Act and it's amendment in 2005. now fuck off when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Try the 1990 Act and it's amendment in 2005. now fuck off when you don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry but I assumed The Daily, The Telegraph, the actual law, and your health secretary all knew what they were talking about.

My bad for thinking the British could get anything right

Perhaps you should let them all know they got it wrong cause SeanH says so!

 

[Sean]

Sorry but I assumed The Daily, The Telegraph, the actual law, and your health secretary all knew what they were talking about.

My bad for thinking the British could get anything right

Perhaps you should let them all know they got it wrong cause SeanH says so!

You haven't quoted the relevant law. And at the moment Andrew Lansley would do just about anything to divert attention from the civil war going on in government over the health bill. But you keep getting your info from Google.

 

[John Doe]

Try the 1990 Act and it's amendment in 2005. now fuck off when you don't know what you're talking about.

For those of us who are somehow even lazier than me:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1

 

[John Doe]

Sorry but I assumed The Daily, The Telegraph, the actual law, and your health secretary all knew what they were talking about.

My bad for thinking the British could get anything right

Perhaps you should let them all know they got it wrong cause SeanH says so!

Quit while you're behind.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

You haven't quoted the relevant law. And at the moment Andrew Lansley would do just about anything to divert attention from the civil war going on in government over the health bill. But you keep getting your info from Google.

and by all means keep saying it is wrong with out giving the right information.
I mean you are such a upstanding guy who never lies that we should all believe you despite what 8 different articles in 8 different newspapers say....

 

[Sean]

and by all means keep saying it is wrong with out giving the right information.
I mean you are such a upstanding guy who never lies that we should all believe you despite what 8 different articles in 8 different newspapers say....

Sigh.

OK, I'll lead you through it because you're a retard. You quoted a section of the 1967 Act. read it again and highlight the section that makes it illegal to perform a gender based abortion.

 

[Sean]

Non medical reasons - Is that true? If so doesn't it more or less make provisions A-D moot?

I have to admit I'm very rusty on abortion law.

"physical or mental well being of the mother".

 

[Sean]

Where'd the whelp go?

 

[Sean]

From what I understand, British law is very similar to Australian law. That is to say, it is technically illegal but for the reasons Vatass cited above. So as long as a woman claims that the abortion is necessary to prevent risk or harm to her "physical or mental health", that abortion is legal. The definition of mental or physical harm is of course pretty open to interpretation, reasons such as depression, etc, are cited regularly.

This nebulous concept of legal/illegal allows the government (at least in Australia) to maintain a stance of not legalising abortions, while at the same time allowing the majority of women who need them to still have the option.

Thus, if a woman is obtaining an abortion on the grounds that "the child is male" or "the child is female" I am fairly certain that would make it an illegal abortion, unless they can somehow stretch the idea of male/female children harming their mother in some way, and even then I always thought the concept of abortion for sex selection was illegal.

Sorry, I missed this.

Scenario: "Doctor, doctor, I just can't cope with another boy. I just can't!"

Mental health of the mother.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Sorry, I missed this.

Scenario: "Doctor, doctor, I just can't cope with another boy. I just can't!"

Mental health of the mother.

So basically you are suggesting gender selection falls under mental health? I doubt any sane court in the world would agree. Just as 8 of your newspapers and your health minster do not agree..... but hey you could be right

 

[Sean]

So basically you are suggesting gender selection falls under mental health? I doubt any sane court in the world would agree. Just as 8 of your newspapers and your health minster do not agree..... but hey you could be right

You can't even get the right fucking law, whelp. You'll forgive me if I treat your opinion of what a court would or would not do with some disdain.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

You can't even get the right fucking law, whelp. You'll forgive me if I treat your opinion of what a court would or would not do with some disdain.

WOW...You truly are a fucking idiot

 

[Sean]

WOW...You truly are a fucking idiot

With a LlB from a respected British university. You have Google. Run along.