WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1981
+THE BROAD PICTURE IS CLEAR IN THAT IT IS TOTALLY CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING PERSONS AGAINST OFFENCES OF VARIOUS SORTS. AND IT PROTECTS EVERY PERSON, MAN OR BOY, WOMAN OR FEMALE CHILD, INCLUDING IN 46 AND 47 THE PERSON OF THE CHILD AS YET UNBORN, FR MCGOVERN SAID.
HE STRESSED THAT THE BILL REFERS TO A WOMAN AND A CHILD THROUGHOUT: +30, LET NO ONE DRAG IN THE WORD 'FOETUS' WITH ITS ANTI-LIFE IMPLICATION THAT A FOETUS BY SOME FREAK OF NATURE IS SOMEHOW OR OTHER NOT A CHILD, OR IS A POTENTIAL CHILD, OR IS A ELOE OF PLASM CR SOMETHING.+
+WE ARE VOTING ABOUT WHETHER THE CHILD SHOULD LIVE OR WHETHER ITS LIFE SHOULD BE TERMINATED ON NEW EXTENDED GROUNDS, HE SAID.
THESE GROUNDS AGE, RAPE, INCEST, THREATS, FALSE PRETENCES ARE ALL NON-MEDICAL AND WOULD NOT BECOME MEDICAL BY BEING PUT UNDER MEDICAL JUDGMENT. THEY WERE LEGALLY, MEDICALLY OR SOCIALLY UNSOUND, FR MCGOVERN SAID,
ON ABORTION FOR THE PREGNANT AT 16, FR MCGOVERN SAID THE MILDEST HE COULD MAKE IT WAS TO CALL IT BOTH SOCIAL AND LEGAL LUNACY.
+WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT RAPE OR OTHER CRIMES, HE SAID, +WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEING UNDER 16 AND WILLING TO HAVE INTERCOURSE, PERHAPS EVEN INVITING IT AND THEREBY BECOMING PREGNANT.
+MY READING OF THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IT IS AN ADDED INVITATION FOR MINORS TO GET PREGNANT BECAUSE IT PROVIDES NEW AND SEPARATE GROUNDS BY WHICH MINORS JUST BY BEING MINORS CAN IN THEIR OWN RIGHT ASK FOR THE SO-CALLED EASY WAY OUT OF THEIR TROUBLES.
+LEGALLY IT IS AN INVITATION TO CONTEMPT OF THE LAW PROTECTING
MINORS.+
SOCIALLY, HE ADDED, ONE WOULD NEED TO BE A BLIND ANGEL NOT TO SEE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CONTRACEPTIVES WITH A KNOWN FAILURE RATE BEING PEADILY AVAILABLE TO TEENAGERS, THE INCREASING BREAKDOWN OF TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES, AND AN INCREASED RATE OF UNWANTED TEENAGE PREGNANCIES WITH ITS FUTURE INCREASED RATE OF ABORTIONS.
ON THE PROVISIONS FOR ABORTION ARISING OUT OF RAPE AND OFFENCES AGAINST THE CRIMES ORDINANCE, FR MCGOVERN SAID IT COULD MEAN THAT THE LAW WAS SAYING TO THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONER WHO WAS IN DOUET THAT IT RESOLVED HIS DOUBT AND GAVE THE MEDICAL OPINION THAT IN ALL CASES OF DOUBT THE WOMAN WAS IN GREATER DANGER IF SHE ALLOWED THE CHILD TO COME TO TERM.
ZBERGANELAST
+
+ IT COULD NOT MEAN THAT, HE SAID, IF NOT IT MUST MEAN THAT THE LAW IS SAYING: 'YOU HAVE A DOUET, IGNORE YOUR DOUBT AND YOUR MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE AND GO AHEAD, AND THE LAW WILL PROTECT YOU FROM THE CONSEQUENCES.'
*WHAT MEDICAL PRACTITIONER COULD ACCEPT SUCH A POSITION? AGAIN, THIS IS BAD MEDICINE AND THEREFORE BAD LAW.
/THE HOLA