Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion

A number of Conservative MPs have criticised Jacob Rees-Mogg's views on abortion, some expressing vehement disagreement while others have gently espoused their more liberal stances.

On Wednesday, Mr Rees-Mogg, who is tipped to one day take over from Theresa May and become Tory leader, said he disagreed with abortion in every circumstance, including in cases of incest and rape. He also said that because he is a Catholic, he disagrees with same-sex marriage.

Margot James MP said: "Agree with @TimesOpinion about Jacob R-M who I like very much; but his views on pregnant women are utterly abhorrent"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/tory-mps-line-disagree-jacob-rees-moggs-utterly-abhorrent-views/


Religious beliefs again, at the forefront of idiocy.

JRM is a true conservative, with fine upstanding principles and a genuine sense of morality , not like these faded washed up soft labour types we currently have.

too bad he wont throw his hat in

smelly-bandit wrote:JRM is a true conservative, with fine upstanding principles and a genuine sense of morality , not like these faded washed up soft labour types we currently have.

too bad he wont throw his hat in

lol, you mean morals formed from myths then?

So, when a 12 year old girl is gang raped by a gang of Muslim extremists and is impregnated by one of them, do you think she should have the right to have a termination, or do you want her to carry ot full term?
Perhaps she could hand the baby over to the gang, hoping they will raise it charitably?
Would JRM or yourself fund the baby until he/she is 18?
Or just leave it to the taxpayer again.
Who knows, they could even radicalise the child to become a terrorist or suicide bomber.
You never know Smelly,  that swarthy kid on the bust in front of you just might have similar origins and his backpack could hold cemtex , rather than maths homework.

Angry Andy wrote:So, when a 12 year old girl is gang raped by a gang of Muslim extremists and is impregnated by one of them, do you think she should have the right to have a tetmination, or do you want her to carry ot full term?
Perhaps she could hand the baby over to the gang, hoping they will raise it charitably?
Who knows, they could even radicalise the child to become a terrorist or suicide bomber.
You never know Smelly,  that swarthy kid on the bust in front of you just might have similar origins and his backpack could hold cemtex , rathwr than maths homework.

you lefties are so binary, no depth to your thinking at all

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:JRM is a true conservative, with fine upstanding principles and a genuine sense of morality , not like these faded washed up soft labour types we currently have.

too bad he wont throw his hat in

lol, you mean morals formed from myths then?

so what about prolifer atheists??

what myths are their morals based on??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:


lol, you mean morals formed from myths then?

so what about prolifer atheists??

what myths are their morals based on??

No myths.

They use reason.

Have you ever tried this?

Answer the queation SB.
£300,000. Are you going to fund/sponsor the bastard child resulting from gang rape?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

so what about prolifer atheists??

what myths are their morals based on??

No myths.

They use reason.

Have you ever tried this?

oh ok

so religious pro lifers are frothing at the mouth lunatics who based their views on myths but atheist pro lifers are logical and rational basing their views on reason.

glad we cleared that up, i was always confused

Angry Andy wrote:Answer the queation SB.
£300,000. Are you going to fund/sponsor the bastard child resulting from gang rape?

am i personally going to sponsor a gang rape child?

no im not, and why should I??

are you going to fund a gang rape child??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No myths.

They use reason.

Have you ever tried this?

oh ok

so religious pro lifers are frothing at the mouth lunatics who based their views on myths but atheist pro lifers are logical and rational basing their views on reason.

glad we cleared that up, i was always confused

Never claimed they were logical. I said they use reason. That reason could be very poor. Depends what they are. I would have to weigh them up with reasons against.

What I am interested though, is how you think believing a myth is rational against that of reason?

Where someone is blindly following a command. The other, the person comes to a conclusion with reason?

So no wonder you are confused.

Happy to help in anyway I can

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

oh ok

so religious pro lifers are frothing at the mouth lunatics who based their views on myths but atheist pro lifers are logical and rational basing their views on reason.

glad we cleared that up, i was always confused

Never claimed they were logical. I said they use reason. That reason could be very poor. Depends what they are. I would have to weigh them up with reasons against.

What I am interested though, is how you think believing a myth is rational against that of reason?

Where someone is blindly following a command. The other, the person comes to a conclusion with reason?

So no wonder you are confused.

Happy to help in anyway I can

youre always so helpful didge, what would i do without you??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Never claimed they were logical. I said they use reason. That reason could be very poor. Depends what they are. I would have to weigh them up with reasons against.

What I am interested though, is how you think believing a myth is rational against that of reason?

Where someone is blindly following a command. The other, the person comes to a conclusion with reason?

So no wonder you are confused.

Happy to help in anyway I can

youre always so helpful didge, what would i do without you??

Not function properly?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

youre always so helpful didge, what would i do without you??

Not function properly?

are you a mind reader??

because its like you're in my mind, thinking my thoughts before i do

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Not function properly?

are you a mind reader??

because its like you're in my mind, thinking my thoughts before i do

Just easily able to predict smelly.

Kind of mathematical based on your known thought process.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Answer the queation SB.
£300,000. Are you going to fund/sponsor the bastard child resulting from gang rape?

am i personally going to sponsor a gang rape child?

no im not, and why should I??

are you going to fund a gang rape child??

Not talking about you sponsoring the gang, BB, but sponsoring the child born as a result of a gang rape.
You , like Mogg, want to see the child born. Are you prepared to help pay for it?

I was under the impression these are his own opinions and he would not force them on any one else?

nicko wrote:I was under the impression these are his own opinions and he would not force them on any one else?

Does that mean people cannot be critical of his said beliefs on this Nicko?

Angry Andy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

am i personally going to sponsor a gang rape child?

no im not, and why should I??

are you going to fund a gang rape child??

Not talking about you sponsoring the gang, BB, but sponsoring the child born as a result of a gang rape.
You , like Mogg, want to see the child born. Are you prepared to help pay for it?

i already do sponsor such children

its called benefits and foreign aid

nicko wrote:I was under the impression these are his own opinions and he would not force them on any one else?

never let the truth stand in the way of a good rant Nicko, its right there is the rules section

rule 1: "the truth is what they say it is"

smelly-bandit wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:

Not talking about you sponsoring the gang, BB, but sponsoring the child born as a result of a gang rape.
You , like Mogg, want to see the child born. Are you prepared to help pay for it?

i already do sponsor such children

its called benefits and foreign aid

How is foreign aid sponsoring a British born baby?

Anyway, and more the point. Would you be against this child being able to have an abortion after being raped?

Or do you stand opposed and based on what reasons?

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

i already do sponsor such children

its called benefits and foreign aid

How is foreign aid sponsoring a British born baby?

Anyway, and more the point. Would you be against this child being able to have an abortion after being raped?

Or do you stand opposed and based on what reasons?

what the hell are you asking me for didge??

why don't you just do what you normally do and TELL me what it is that i believe, answer your own question for me, it wont be any different to what usually happens around here

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How is foreign aid sponsoring a British born baby?

Anyway, and more the point. Would you be against this child being able to have an abortion after being raped?

Or do you stand opposed and based on what reasons?

what the hell are you asking me for didge??

why don't you just do what you normally do and TELL me what it is that i believe, answer your own question for me, it wont be any different to what usually happens around here    

Copout alert

I was trying to generate debate, but as usual you give a load of crap excuses and run away with your tail between your legs.

Thorin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

what the hell are you asking me for didge??

why don't you just do what you normally do and TELL me what it is that i believe, answer your own question for me, it wont be any different to what usually happens around here    

Copout alert

I was trying to generate debate, but as usual you give a load of crap excuses and run away with your tail between your legs.

debate??

what in the hell makes you think im interested in debate??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Copout alert

I was trying to generate debate, but as usual you give a load of crap excuses and run away with your tail between your legs.

debate??

what in the hell makes you think im interested in debate??

Yeah silly thought really. I forgot, you have not advanced to the levels of reasons and are still stuck on being a blind sheep mode. Someone really needs to take you back into the workshop to be reprogrammed.

We frequently lock horns Thor, but when we agree, there is little a racist bigot like Bumbandit can answer to. He knows we are both legally and morally right in letting the girl abort, so I am not quite sure where he is coming from. Perhaps he likes the thought of Muslim gangs inseminating 12 year olds through rape.

Angry Andy wrote:We frequently lock horns Thor, but when we agree, there is little a racist bigot like Bumbandit can answer to. He knows we are both legally and morally right in letting the girl abort, so I am not quite sure where he is coming from. Perhaps he likes the thought of Muslim gangs inseminating 12 year olds through rape.

Indeed Andy. I mean why run away from such a topic? The answer is simple, he believes other people who do not share his views, are inferior to him.

Its a classic scientific racism mentality.

He wants the clown title that Milo has. At least Milo is intelligent. So smelly will always fall short, living in his shadow.

It seems he is here, as he wants to goad many here. 

Not doing a very good job so far is he?

Catch you later.

See you later. Busy househusbanding today. Dog walked kitchen and cooker cleaned. Bathroom cleaned. Washing and ironing done.
Summer clothes put away, winter stuff out and airing. Feelgood day.
Smashed SB in a debate.

Odd that a thread about abortion only has (so far) males contributing.

My view is the only male who should have a say in whether abortion is valid or not are the male members of medical team who may be dealing with her case.

If the laws concerning abortion were ever to be changed or modified, people like him, who makes his decisions on religious rather than humanitarian grounds, should be exempt from voting.

Hardly mine nor Thorins fault if the females on here choose not to enter the debate. That's their decision.
As should the decision whether a young girl impregnated during a gang rape can abort.
IT IS HER CALL.
Not Bandit's warped far right view. Or Farage. Or Mogg. Or thd Pope.
Her decision.
Men (or women) should not tell what she can and cannot do.

Allowing abortion legally  has never been a matter of telling a woman what she can or cannot do...its making advice and help freely available, ultimately it should always be the womans decision.
If that's not available  a woman will do what she has always done, found unsafe methods to end her pregnancy, or have an unwanted child.

I doubt the vast majority of females make the decision to abort lightly...a child who has been raped and ends up pregnant (like has been mentioned in this thread) needs specialist help and care...quickly. Obviously first they have to be believed, else they will end up in some back street room having an abortion performed using a coat hanger, by one of their rapists, as happened to at least one child who was a victim of the Pakistani grooming gangs.

Idiots like JRM should keep out of any debate about abortion.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:

Not talking about you sponsoring the gang, BB, but sponsoring the child born as a result of a gang rape.
You , like Mogg, want to see the child born. Are you prepared to help pay for it?

i already do sponsor such children

its called benefits and foreign aid

You would have to pay enough in taxes first,  smelly...

And to pay your fair share,  first you have to get a genuine job..

Oh,  and move up out of your parent's basement  !

Syl wrote:Odd that a thread about abortion only has (so far) males contributing.

My view is the only male who should have a say in whether abortion is valid or not are the male members of medical team who may be dealing with her case.

If the laws concerning abortion were ever to be changed or modified, people like him, who makes his decisions on religious rather than humanitarian grounds, should be exempt from voting.

how very democratic of you

"i don't like your views so you shouldn't be allowed to vote"

thank goodness people like you arent in charge

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:Odd that a thread about abortion only has (so far) males contributing.

My view is the only male who should have a say in whether abortion is valid or not are the male members of medical team who may be dealing with her case.

If the laws concerning abortion were ever to be changed or modified, people like him, who makes his decisions on religious rather than humanitarian grounds, should be exempt from voting.

how very democratic of you

"i don't like your views so you shouldn't be allowed to vote"

thank goodness people like you arent in charge

Oh but people like me are in charge....I have a vote come local and general elections. 

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

how very democratic of you

"i don't like your views so you shouldn't be allowed to vote"

thank goodness people like you arent in charge

Oh but people like me are in charge....I have a vote come local and general elections. 

and why should you have a vote??

i dont agree with your politics so i think you should not have a vote.

so next local or general elections i think you should stay home

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Oh but people like me are in charge....I have a vote come local and general elections. 

and why should you have a vote??

i dont agree with your politics so i think you should not have a vote.

so next local or general elections i think you should stay home

 

Its called democracy....

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:Odd that a thread about abortion only has (so far) males contributing.

My view is the only male who should have a say in whether abortion is valid or not are the male members of medical team who may be dealing with her case.

If the laws concerning abortion were ever to be changed or modified, people like him, who makes his decisions on religious rather than humanitarian grounds, should be exempt from voting.

how very democratic of you

"i don't like your views so you shouldn't be allowed to vote"

thank goodness people like you arent in charge

Don't we already do that with people sentenced to prison?

I agree its wrong to deny anyone a vote simple for being in disagreement on a subject, as it becomes Totalitarian and not democratic, and yet we do deny people a vote when they are in prison.

On the grand scale of things, would it be better to deny some religious zealot who could outlaw abortion the vote....

or help a pregnant girl or woman who had been raped, or a woman who was carrying a badly damaged fetus have an  abortion?

Syl wrote:On the grand scale of things, would it be better to deny some religious zealot who could outlaw abortion the vote....

or help a pregnant girl or woman who had been raped, or a woman who was carrying a badly damaged fetus have an  abortion?

What you claim is Totalitarianism.

You always help anyone in need of help.

The moment you start denying people the vote on view they hold, where do you draw the line?

I could easily rubbish smelly's arguments here on denying a women the right to choose, but he shy's away from this, but don't ever think its right to deny people a vote based on what you think is right over them. It fails to be democratic and becomes in an effect an apartheid system based on beliefs.

What is very important is protecting the rights of all people under the law.

I know it wont happen....but its my opinion.
I don't believe anyone who has the power to change laws should consider them from a religious viewpoint, it should always be from a humanitarian aspect, one which helps society in general.

He could always decline to vote though.

Syl wrote:I know it wont happen....but its my opinion.
I don't believe anyone who has the power to change laws should consider them from a religious viewpoint, it should always be from a humanitarian aspect, one which helps society in general.

He could always decline to vote though.

Well does that not show how little faith you have in humanity? After years of change that has occurred for people standing up for what is right, by reasoning for the rights of people?

The reality is more and more people have shied away from being religiously literal in their beliefs in the west. This has happened because more and more people have been able to challenge said beliefs. Granted the US still has a hard core that won't allow themselves to even contemplate taking the self test. Of being as critical of their own religious beliefs, that they would be of any other religious beliefs. Many cannot do this, as they are not as critical of their own religious beliefs. If they did properly, they would cease to believe anymore.

Just think how much such laws have changed, because people can see for themselves how something is wrong?

I doubt smelly would take said test for example


The Outsider Test for Faith And How to Take It

Read more at


 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/05/the-outsider-test-for-faith-and-how-to-take-it/#ssDESB5ORg03jDdv.99

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:I know it wont happen....but its my opinion.
I don't believe anyone who has the power to change laws should consider them from a religious viewpoint, it should always be from a humanitarian aspect, one which helps society in general.

He could always decline to vote though.

Well does that not show how little faith you have in humanity? After years of change that has occurred for people standing up for what is right, by reasoning for the rights of people?

The reality is more and more people have shied away from being religiously literal in their beliefs in the west. This has happened because more and more people have been able to challenge said beliefs. Granted the US still has a hard core that won't allow themselves to even contemplate taking the self test. Of being as critical of their own religious beliefs, that they would be of any other religious beliefs. Many cannot do this, as they are not as critical of their own religious beliefs. If they did properly, they would cease to believe anymore.

Just think how much such laws have changed, because people can see for themselves how something is wrong?

I have great faith in humanity....not so much in politicians.
Anyway,,,the subject is mute at this time because the abortion laws are not in line to be changed anytime soon, in spite of the views JRM holds.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well does that not show how little faith you have in humanity? After years of change that has occurred for people standing up for what is right, by reasoning for the rights of people?

The reality is more and more people have shied away from being religiously literal in their beliefs in the west. This has happened because more and more people have been able to challenge said beliefs. Granted the US still has a hard core that won't allow themselves to even contemplate taking the self test. Of being as critical of their own religious beliefs, that they would be of any other religious beliefs. Many cannot do this, as they are not as critical of their own religious beliefs. If they did properly, they would cease to believe anymore.

Just think how much such laws have changed, because people can see for themselves how something is wrong?

I have great faith in humanity....not so much in politicians.
Anyway,,,the subject is mute at this time because the abortion laws are not in line to be changed anytime soon, in spite of the views JRM holds.

Nor are they likely to be and thank goodness for that

Syl wrote:On the grand scale of things, would it be better to deny some religious zealot who could outlaw abortion the vote....

or help a pregnant girl or woman who had been raped, or a woman who was carrying a badly damaged fetus have an  abortion?

so people who have religious views should be excluded from voting on abortion??

interesting

what else should they be excluded from voting on??

Thor, of course they can be critical never said they couldn't.

What I mean is, it's is own beliefs, his own opinions, he did say he would not force them on any one else. I don't agree with them, but again it's his OWN opinions.

nicko wrote:Thor, of course they can be critical never said they couldn't.

What I mean is, it's is own beliefs, his own opinions,   he did say he would not force them on any one else.    I don't agree with them, but again it's his OWN opinions.

I agree that is fine Nicko.

But again, does that not mean i cannot be openly spoken against his views, being the fact he is a politician?

I mean do you not share with me, in being very critical of his beliefs on this?

Do you think people should not speak out on views they disagree with and reason why?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:On the grand scale of things, would it be better to deny some religious zealot who could outlaw abortion the vote....

or help a pregnant girl or woman who had been raped, or a woman who was carrying a badly damaged fetus have an  abortion?

so people who have religious views should be excluded from voting on abortion??

interesting

what else should they be excluded from voting on??

It was a hypothetical question.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

so people who have religious views should be excluded from voting on abortion??

interesting

what else should they be excluded from voting on??

It was a hypothetical question.

I think the more interesting question here is on when does something be classed as life, in the human sense.

Now, I think all of us would agree that abortion is wrong when a woman is say 8 months pregnant, unless it could endanger her life. So this whole arguments stems over what is and how we can define a baby becomes human. Or a thinking being.

Now a women should always have control over the decisions she makes over her body. She already deals with living organisms that invade her body. Or those that can form within her body. The most prominent is cancer. Which of course nobody would argue over destroying. So the argument here is not really on whether people are pro-life. Many of us already are, but when something is defined as human life and at what stage.

So it would be wrong to deny people the right to vote anyway based on beliefs, but more so. That people often argue over what is life. Of course no pro-lifer would argue to save a living organism, a cancerous cell that is destroying a human body. I think that is why we do have limits on when abortions can be allowed and on what circumstances.

So as much as I will always disagree with religious reasons, as they have years argued over basically your sperm being ejaculated as a sin. Its never wrong, to question how and when something is a conscious being. Having said that, to me the call, should always be with the woman. This is something that they have within them living and have to decide on. There is no religious argument on this, but rational ones born from reasons. Which is what I pointed out to smelly from the beginning.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

so people who have religious views should be excluded from voting on abortion??

interesting

what else should they be excluded from voting on??

It was a hypothetical question.

hypothetically, what else should they be excluded from voting on??