File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1080/09649069108413565
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84946296491
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Cosmetics, eugenics and ambivalence: The revision of the abortion act 1967
| Title | Cosmetics, eugenics and ambivalence: The revision of the abortion act 1967 |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Issue Date | 1991 |
| Citation | Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 1991, v. 13, n. 5, p. 375-393 How to Cite? |
| Abstract | In this article the author begins by examining the extent to which the grounds for a legal termination of pregnancy under the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) represent a departure from the existing law. It is argued that in practice, the only significant change will be in respect of abortions performed on the basis of foetal handicap. The inconsitency within the statutory framework governing the law of abortion is also discussed. The piece concludes by suggesting that the language used to frame a fixed time limit in respect of “social” abortions appears an equally elusive formula as its predecessor: “a child capable of being born alive. © 1991 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. |
| Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/326080 |
| ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.6 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.355 |
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Murphy, John | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-09T09:57:52Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-03-09T09:57:52Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 1991 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 1991, v. 13, n. 5, p. 375-393 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0964-9069 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/326080 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | In this article the author begins by examining the extent to which the grounds for a legal termination of pregnancy under the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) represent a departure from the existing law. It is argued that in practice, the only significant change will be in respect of abortions performed on the basis of foetal handicap. The inconsitency within the statutory framework governing the law of abortion is also discussed. The piece concludes by suggesting that the language used to frame a fixed time limit in respect of “social” abortions appears an equally elusive formula as its predecessor: “a child capable of being born alive. © 1991 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. | - |
| dc.language | eng | - |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law | - |
| dc.title | Cosmetics, eugenics and ambivalence: The revision of the abortion act 1967 | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/09649069108413565 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84946296491 | - |
| dc.identifier.volume | 13 | - |
| dc.identifier.issue | 5 | - |
| dc.identifier.spage | 375 | - |
| dc.identifier.epage | 393 | - |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1469-9621 | - |