Un ******* believable.

[space junkie]

Look at you goading Jonathon m, a polite character who listens and gives out his thoughts with no malice intended.
What a sad individual you are.

Are you Jonathan's guardian angel?
He's demonstrated he's very capable of holding sensible discussions, if he wants to, unlike yourself.
But he does have a habit of claiming to be of no particular persuasion, yet his comments are out of kilter with his claims.

Anyway, I'm bored with your nonsense now.

 

[gant]

Anyway, I'm bored with your nonsense now.

Not surprised, your not sure whether your ar*e has been bored or punched this evening.

 

[JonathanM]

But he does have a habit of claiming to be of no particular persuasion, yet his comments are out of kilter with his claims.

I have never claimed to not hold views.

Maybe I confuse you, though. If I know someone is wrong, especially with regards to the law, I will say so, even if that goes against my "cause". I don't see the point in perpetuating falsehoods just to "win" an argument.

 

[Vinty]

It must have been the Christian church that turned him into an evil monster !

Given the history of the so called Christian church and its abuse of children, anything is possible.

 

[space junkie]

I have never claimed to not hold views.

I'm sure I have a recollection in the Viva la France discussion, (and I have no intention of looking through 150 pages to find it.), where you claimed your only reason for entering the discussion was an academic interest. And a desire to support the under dog.
Yet you consistently supported the anti-abortion argument.

 

[Vinty]

And a desire to support the under dog

Who do you reckon the underdog is in the abortion debate.

 

[Notch7]

Who do you reckon the underdog is in the abortion debate.

The anti abortion nutters

 

[Vinty]

Yet you consistently supported the anti-abortion argument.

Science and common humanity also supports it.

 

[JonathanM]

I'm sure I have a recollection in the Viva la France discussion, (and I have no intention of looking through 150 pages to find it.), where you claimed your only reason for entering the discussion was an academic interest.

And that was true. In amongst those 150 pages, a legal point, about the offences and sentences in various scenarios, was being discussed. It seemed to be something I could help resolve, and (eventually) I did.

The problem you seem to have, is that you are so one-eyed in your views, that you can no longer be objective. Whereas lawyers often argue in favour of issues which they personally don't believe in. When I posted an article which discussed some polling data, you threw a wobbly.

 

[space junkie]

And that was true. In amongst those 150 pages, a legal point, about the offences and sentences in various scenarios, was being discussed. It seemed to be something I could help resolve, and (eventually) I did.

Really? What did you resolve?

The problem you seem to have, is that you are so one-eyed in your views, that you can no longer be objective.

I make no pretence to be non-partisan.
I argue for what I believe, for what I think is right. I do not claim to be an uninterested party arguing for one side only.
In a discussion, there's no requirement for the combatants to be uninterested in that which they are discussing.
In fact it is disingenuous to claim a non-partisan stance, when in reality one supports one side of the discussion.

When I posted an article which discussed some polling data, you threw a wobbly.

Remind me.
I can certainly understand me taking you to task for your presented data if it was irrelevant, incorrect or out of date, presented in order to misrepresent, etc.
But "throwing a wobbly" is a theatrical exaggeration, don't you think?

 

[space junkie]

Science and common humanity also supports it.

New words for religion?

 

[JonathanM]

Really? What did you resolve?

There was a discussion over what the penalty would be in the situation where two doctors have come to the opinion, in good faith, that the grounds for abortion were met, but the abortion went ahead without one of them actually signing the HSA1. It was resolved that if this had been done wilfully, the penalty would be a fine on scale 5. That led to a further discussion about whether the maximum penalty for an illegal abortion under the Offences Against the Person Act was 14 years or life in prison. It was resolved that the maximum penalty was life in prison.

 

[space junkie]

There was a discussion over what the penalty would be in the situation where two doctors have come to the opinion, in good faith, that the grounds for abortion were met, but the abortion went ahead without one of them actually signing the HSA1. It was resolved that if this had been done wilfully, the penalty would be a fine on scale 5. That led to a further discussion about whether the maximum penalty for an illegal abortion under the Offences Against the Person Act was 14 years or life in prison. It was resolved that the maximum penalty was life in prison.

Has any RMP ever been convicted of such offences?
I am aware that some women have been convicted of obtaining termination pills under false pretences, which reinforces noseall's comment about the problem of access to and delays in the abortion services.