Last night, I did have a very interesting discussion/conversation with one of my friends, she was telling me that law students and medical students have different perspectives in dealing with a particular topic. Is that true? According to her, that medical students tend to speak based on scientific evidence ( the existence of a particular thing must be proved before they can say it out) as they are dealing with human bodies. On the other hand, law students tend to twist our words, that we know how to play with words and not necessarily based on facts. In my opinion, it is true that as a lawyer, one must be able to use nice en beautiful words to impress clients, judges, opponents, etc but we do must speak based on the facts as well. It is because, speaking out anything ( words are beautifully come out) does not mean that one is going to win the case without grounds to support the case ( exceptional prob in closing speech). It is true that one must know how to twist words but it is only one of the factors.
Looking/Comparing these two fields fr my point of view; basically are almost similar in the sense that both dealing with humans, and the life and death of a person. For the medicals, they deal with diseases in human bodies, how to treat and cure them, life of patients etc. While for the law, we deal with human beings as well and whether the client is going to be free or serve his/her sentence behind the bar( jail, life imprisonment, death sentence).
Secondly, another topic that came out from our mind was about abortion. According to Abortion Act 1967, abortion is allowed to be performed when continuance of pregnancy involved a greater risk to physical/ mental health of the woman/ her existing children. The woman actual/ reasonably foreseeable future environment must be taken into account. Abortion up to 24 weeks are allowed if substantial risk that the child when born would suffer 'such physical/ mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. If there is 'foreseeable future' that the unborn child is going to be a handicapped, is that mean that handicapped child has no right to enjoy life in this world? How about is the 'foreseeable future' or evidence/ report which stated that the child will be handicapped, turn out to be inaccurate? it will not just ruin the right to life of the unborn child but also any other right which he/ she is entitled to.
So, should abortion be legalize or not? in my opinion , legalization of abortion is good as when abortion is not legalized, pregnant girls or women may just go to unhealthy or non-hygienic clinics etc to have abortions. However, there may be disadvantages of legalization of abortion.
Without looking at the law, what is the best and suitable time to have an abortion if a girl/ a woman gets pregnant? I think there are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account such as age, environment i.e. society/family which one has been brought up, one's situations etc. Age- whether the girl/ woman is too young or too old to be pregnant, environment- whether the society is from modernize / liberal society or conservative society, and one 's situations- factors surrounding her.
2 comments:
The proposition that law students only know how to play with words and not with facts is laughable. It shows if anything ignorance of the discipline of law.
The most important aspect of law in practice is the ability to manage the facts of the case. The expression 'twisting of words' only arises where one fails to realize that a lawyer has successfully "interpreted" the facts in a manner which best-suits his or her client's objectives.
Everything in law is based on facts. You build your submissions and conclusions based on your analysis of the facts before you. Just like medical students or doctors, we have to back up everything we say with authority.
thats wht i told her :)
Post a Comment