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

by Guest Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:29 am

First topic message reminder :

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.

by Guest Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:57 pm

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:When it doubt get the clubs out

Spoken like a true Antifa activist.

Two side of the same coin

by Guest Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:03 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Spoken like a true Antifa activist.

Two side of the same coin

So both being wrong. They cannot reason their views but try to enforce their views, often with violence.

Who would have thought, you would have a comparability to Islamism.

Cool

Keep these arguments up smelly, they constantly contradict.

Laughing

by Guest Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:02 pm

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Two side of the same coin

So both being wrong. They cannot reason their views but try to enforce their views, often with violence.

Who would have thought, you would have a comparability to Islamism.

Keep these arguments up smelly, they constantly contradict.

Or both being right

Don't you know didge??

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

by Guest Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:04 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So both being wrong. They cannot reason their views but try to enforce their views, often with violence.

Who would have thought, you would have a comparability to Islamism.

Keep these arguments up smelly, they constantly contradict.

Or both being right

Don't you know didge??

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

So you are saying, that you are a terrorist then smelly?

by Guest Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:25 pm

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Or both being right

Don't you know didge??

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

So you are saying, that you are a terrorist then smelly?

Freedom fighter

by Guest Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:27 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you are saying, that you are a terrorist then smelly?

Freedom fighter

What freedom fight are you fighting for as a born South African Christian in the UK?

White supremacy?

by Guest Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:31 pm

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Freedom fighter

What freedom fight are you fighting for as a born South African Christian in the UK?

White supremacy?

I'm. Fighting for freedom

The clue is in the title didge

by Guest Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:34 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:

What freedom fight are you fighting for as a born South African Christian in the UK?

White supremacy?

I'm. Fighting for freedom

The clue is in the title didge

In a free democratic society?

So you claim you have no freedom?

Is this the freedom to enslave others, as you once had?

by HoratioTarr Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:12 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

What does it matter how many there is, if you back the right of women to decide to control their own bodies?

Of course it matters how many women seek abortions.
Something is going badly wrong in society if women aren't protecting themselves, the question should be asked WHY?.....I am talking of women who have consensual sex.

Abortion shouldn't be viewed as an alternative to using birth control....you seem to talk as if it is.

That's the crux of it.

by Guest Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:11 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:

Of course it matters how many women seek abortions.
Something is going badly wrong in society if women aren't protecting themselves, the question should be asked WHY?.....I am talking of women who have consensual sex.

Abortion shouldn't be viewed as an alternative to using birth control....you seem to talk as if it is.

That's the crux of it.

But it is a form of birth control.

Hence the absurdity of a view to claim otherwise.

by Syl Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:58 pm

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

That's the crux of it.

But it is a form of birth control.

Hence the absurdity of a view to claim otherwise.

Birth control covers various methods of contraception and is aimed to stop a woman becoming pregnant in the first place....abortion is dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
If you see abortion as an alternative to birth control you are wrong....it isn't.

Anyone who uses abortion as a form of birth control is dealing with a problem after the event.

by Guest Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:04 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

But it is a form of birth control.

Hence the absurdity of a view to claim otherwise.

Birth control covers various methods of contraception and is aimed to stop a woman becoming pregnant in the first place....abortion is dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
If you see abortion as an alternative to birth control you are wrong....it isn't.

Anyone who uses abortion as a form of birth control is dealing with a problem after the event.

It does not matter how much you try to wrap up your view point here, its still birth control.

Whether that is right or wrong ethically is another matter, but it is still a form of a birth control

I have highlighted the important word for you#

Have a good evening.

by Syl Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:10 pm

You are taking the words literally and not understanding the point....as per.
You have a good evening too.

by Guest Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:13 pm

Why not when you get a chance have a read Syl.

In a new book Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, argues abortions should be made as freely available as contraception and claims the procedure is just another form of birth control.

Mrs Furedi also argues there is nothing morally wrong with destroying a foetus because abortion “kills a being that has no sense of life or death”.

In her book, The Moral Case For Abortion, Mrs Furedi, said: “The clinical risks of early abortion are not significantly higher than those of contraception, so why should it matter morally or legally if a woman chooses to practise birth control through this method instead of another?

"Abortion may be an act of killing - but it kills a being that has no sense of life or death, and no awareness of itself as distinct from others.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/681558/Abortion-birth-control-morals-same-getting-married-argues-pregnancy-clinic-boss

http://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137411181

Night

by HoratioTarr Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:32 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

But it is a form of birth control.

Hence the absurdity of a view to claim otherwise.

Birth control covers various methods of contraception and is aimed to stop a woman becoming pregnant in the first place....abortion is dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
If you see abortion as an alternative to birth control you are wrong....it isn't.

Anyone who uses abortion as a form of birth control is dealing with a problem after the event.

Does one really have to insert the word 'preventative' here? I swear to God he does nothing but equivocate and split hairs. Perhaps you need to spell it out in Jack and Jill language for him. An abortion is a termination. Birth control is about prevention. Rolling Eyes

by Syl Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:44 pm

Thorin wrote:Why not when you get a chance have a read Syl.

In a new book Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, argues abortions should be made as freely available as contraception and claims the procedure is just another form of birth control.

Mrs Furedi also argues there is nothing morally wrong with destroying a foetus because abortion “kills a being that has no sense of life or death”.

In her book, The Moral Case For Abortion, Mrs Furedi, said: “The clinical risks of early abortion are not significantly higher than those of contraception, so why should it matter morally or legally if a woman chooses to practise birth control through this method instead of another?

"Abortion may be an act of killing - but it kills a being that has no sense of life or death, and no awareness of itself as distinct from others.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/681558/Abortion-birth-control-morals-same-getting-married-argues-pregnancy-clinic-boss

http://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137411181

Night

This is just one womans view, and I suspect even people who are pro choice would find her views disturbing.

This is the woman who wants the law to be changed so babies can be aborted if they are the 'wrong' sex.
As the sex of a baby cant be reliably known till the pregnancy is between 18 to 21 weeks, and often not even then, this means that thousands of abortions will be carried out far later than they are at present.

by Guest Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:48 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:Why not when you get a chance have a read Syl.

Night

This is just one womans view, and I suspect even people who are pro choice would find her views disturbing.

This is the woman who wants the law to be changed so babies can be aborted if they are the 'wrong' sex.
As the sex of a baby cant be reliably known till the pregnancy is between 18 to 21 weeks, and often not even then, this means that thousands of abortions will be carried out far later than they are at present.

I do not find her qualified views disturbing, as again the point is whether you are pro-abortion or not. You cannot pick and choose the parameters of when abortion is acceptable. You are either for or against, there is no middle ground.

Here have a read before you again form poor decisions based off emotions and not reason.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/women-having-abortions-contraception-doesnt-work/

by Syl Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:26 pm

Why would i want to read yet another article by the same woman?
Her views are extreme and disturbing.

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:25 am

Syl wrote:Why would i want to read yet another article by the same woman?
Her views are extreme and disturbing.

I agree, and the comments section was very telling

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:34 pm

Syl wrote:Why would i want to read yet another article by the same woman?
Her views are extreme and disturbing.

you don't like to see views that are extreme and disturbing??

do they violate your safe space and make your narrative harder to defend??

by Syl Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:12 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:Why would i want to read yet another article by the same woman?
Her views are extreme and disturbing.

you don't like to see views that are extreme and disturbing??

do they violate your safe space and make your narrative harder to defend??

If that was the case I would skip over your posts, as you see I'm not at that stage just yet. Wink

by Syl Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:14 pm

gelico wrote:
Syl wrote:Why would i want to read yet another article by the same woman?
Her views are extreme and disturbing.

I agree, and the comments section was very telling

I will have a read....I cant see her views being agreed with by many.
Its quite alarming that women with such extreme views are in a position to advise and influence other women though.

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:44 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

you don't like to see views that are extreme and disturbing??

do they violate your safe space and make your narrative harder to defend??

If that was the case I would skip over your posts, as you see I'm not at that stage just yet.

then why not read the article??

by Syl Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:47 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

If that was the case I would skip over your posts, as you see I'm not at that stage just yet.

then why not read the article??

I read the first one, so I get the gist of what she is promoting.

Have you read it? What are your opinions?

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:49 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

then why not read the article??
I read the first one, so I get the gist of what she is promoting.

Have you read it? What are your opinions?

i very rarely read any of the tripe that didge posts up

by Syl Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:56 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:
I read the first one, so I get the gist of what she is promoting.

Have you read it? What are your opinions?

i very rarely read any of the tripe that didge posts up

Yet you expect me to? Rolling Eyes

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:11 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

i very rarely read any of the tripe that didge posts up
Yet you expect me to?

I dont expect from you

im just asking

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:28 pm

That is because Syl cannot separate an issue basaed on reason and allows emotions to get in the way.

Again you either support abortion or you do not.

So based on the reasons I presented.

Syl does not want to read them.

wow

Emotions getting in the way again

Seems also is quite too faced, when she generally reads and replies to many posts I make.

Hey ho

by Syl Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:30 pm

Thorin wrote:That is because Syl cannot separate an issue basaed on reason and allows emotions to get in the way.

Again you either support abortion or you do not.

So based on the reasons I presented.

Syl does not want to read them.

wow

Emotions getting in the way again

I read the first article and gave my opinion.

Do you agree with her that abortions should be performed simply because the baby is the wrong sex?

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:34 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:That is because Syl cannot separate an issue basaed on reason and allows emotions to get in the way.

Again you either support abortion or you do not.

So based on the reasons I presented.

Syl does not want to read them.

wow

Emotions getting in the way again
I read the first article and gave my opinion.

Do you agree with her that abortions should be performed simply because the baby is the wrong sex?

I see no problems. Why do you see a problem, if you already support abortion?

You cut around answering anything.

Which is no surprise

by Syl Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:43 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:
I read the first article and gave my opinion.

Do you agree with her that abortions should be performed simply because the baby is the wrong sex?

I see no problems. Why do you see a problem, if you already support abortion?

You cut around answering anything.

Which is no surprise

Do you ever actually read replies to your posts Thor?
I gave my opinion yesterday....you ignored it, YOU cut around answering people because you are like a stuck needle sometimes.

My response was....

This is just one womans view, and I suspect even people who are pro choice would find her views disturbing.

This is the woman who wants the law to be changed so babies can be aborted if they are the 'wrong' sex.
As the sex of a baby cant be reliably known till the pregnancy is between 18 to 21 weeks, and often not even then, this means that thousands of abortions will be carried out far later than they are at present.

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:47 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I see no problems. Why do you see a problem, if you already support abortion?

You cut around answering anything.

Which is no surprise
Do you ever actually read replies to your posts Thor?
I gave my opinion yesterday....you ignored it, YOU cut around answering people because you are like a stuck needle sometimes.

My response was....

This is just one womans view, and I suspect even people who are pro choice would find her views disturbing.

This is the woman who wants the law to be changed so babies can be aborted if they are the 'wrong' sex.
As the sex of a baby cant be reliably known till the pregnancy is between 18 to 21 weeks, and often not even then, this means that thousands of abortions will be carried out far later than they are at present.

Yes you gave me an answer that never tackled any of the points being made. Only saying that you think some of her views are wrong. Never reasoning why.

Are you suggesting people bring into the world children they do not want and then that child be unloved?

What is worse here?

Are you also suggesting they have to carry that baby to term, just to make you feel better about yourself?

The choice is on the woman as the host whether to continue to carry that unborn fetus within them.

If you really support abortion, then you back the right for that woman to decide.

by Syl Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:00 pm

I gave a reason why. Rolling Eyes

Delaying an abortion for up to 10 weeks just so you can pick and choose what sex your baby is is WRONG.

Next you will be saying its OK to abort a full term baby because a scan shows its eyes are the wrong colour.

Where will it stop?

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:03 pm

Syl wrote:I gave a reason why.

Delaying an abortion for up to 10 weeks just so you can pick and choose what sex your baby is is WRONG.

Next you will be saying its OK to abort a full term baby because a scan shows its eyes are the wrong colour.

Where will it stop?

And there you have it, you simple say its wrong and never reason why, because its based on emotions.

So where a family has a son already, and only can afford to have two children and also want a girl. You are saying its wrong for them to abort until they get a girl?

Seems to me, is you trying to dictate and rule peoples lives

Either you support the right of women to have control over their own bodies or you do not.

by Syl Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:13 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:I gave a reason why.

Delaying an abortion for up to 10 weeks just so you can pick and choose what sex your baby is is WRONG.

Next you will be saying its OK to abort a full term baby because a scan shows its eyes are the wrong colour.

Where will it stop?

And there you have it, you simple say its wrong and never reason why, because its based on emotions.

Its based on humanity.

So where a family has a son already, and only can afford to have two children and also want a girl. You are saying its wrong for them to abort until they get a girl?

Yes. 100%.

Seems to me, is you trying to dictate and rule peoples lives

Simply giving an opinion...its what people do on forums.

Either you support the right of women to have control over their own bodies or you do not.

There are limits. Obviously the law as it stands agrees with my viewpoint not yours.

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:19 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

And there you have it, you simple say its wrong and never reason why, because its based on emotions.

Its based on humanity.

So where a family has a son already, and only can afford to have two children and also want a girl. You are saying its wrong for them to abort until they get a girl?

Yes. 100%.

Seems to me, is you trying to dictate and rule peoples lives

Simply giving an opinion...its what people do on forums.

Either you support the right of women to have control over their own bodies or you do not.
There are limits. Obviously the law as it stands agrees with my viewpoint not yours.

1) That is not a reason

2) So you think its wrong, that does not mean you can deny that woman to decide how to control her own body

3) Yes I know you are, but you seem uptight over my opinions

4) Well the law will need to change. Like I say, you either back a woman to control her body or you do not, which clearly is the later for you. It makes your stance on abortions hypocritical.

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:19 pm

Thorin wrote:That is because Syl cannot separate an issue basaed on reason and allows emotions to get in the way.

Again you either support abortion or you do not.

So based on the reasons I presented.

Syl does not want to read them.

wow

Emotions getting in the way again

Seems also is quite too faced, when she generally reads and replies to many posts I make.

Hey ho

such limited binary thinking

"you are either for it or against it" and nothing in between

*rolls eyes*

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:20 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:That is because Syl cannot separate an issue basaed on reason and allows emotions to get in the way.

Again you either support abortion or you do not.

So based on the reasons I presented.

Syl does not want to read them.

wow

Emotions getting in the way again

Seems also is quite too faced, when she generally reads and replies to many posts I make.

Hey ho

such limited binary thinking

"you are either for it or against it" and nothing in between

*rolls eyes*

Its it binary really smells?

"sigh"

by Syl Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:26 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:
There are limits. Obviously the law as it stands agrees with my viewpoint not yours.

1) That is not a reason

2) So you think its wrong, that does not mean you can deny that woman to decide how to control her own body

3) Yes I know you are, but you seem uptight over my opinions

4) Well the law will need to change. Like I say, you either back a woman to control her body or you do not, which clearly is the later for you. It makes your stance on abortions hypocritical.

Of course its a reason.

I cant, the law can and does....sexual preference is not a reason to terminate.

No....its you who cant accept my opinions, yoy can think what you like, even when you are wrong you have that entitlement.

You call it what you want Thor....but there has to be limits,

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:29 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) That is not a reason

2) So you think its wrong, that does not mean you can deny that woman to decide how to control her own body

3) Yes I know you are, but you seem uptight over my opinions

4) Well the law will need to change. Like I say, you either back a woman to control her body or you do not, which clearly is the later for you. It makes your stance on abortions hypocritical.
Of course its a reason.

I cant, the law can and does....sexual preference is not a reason to terminate.

No....its you who cant accept my opinions, yoy can think what you like, even when you are wrong you have that entitlement.

You call it what you want Thor....but there has to be limits,

Laws change all the time and just saying humanity, its nothing more than an emotive response.

So you claim I am not accepting your opinions, by claiming I am wrong.

Double standard alert

Like I say, I back the tight of women to have control over their bodies, you clearly do not.

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:35 pm

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

such limited binary thinking

"you are either for it or against it" and nothing in between

*rolls eyes*

Its it binary really smells?

"sigh"

what???

are you saying that abortion is a binary issue

or

are you asking me if i think abortion is a binary issue??

your written English is fucking shocking

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:37 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its it binary really smells?

"sigh"

what???

are you saying that abortion is a binary issue

or

are you asking me if i think abortion is a binary issue??

your written English is fucking shocking

So is your responses

Your claimed my arguments were binary

So potty mouth, lets here your views.

Or have you missed your afternoon nap.

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:40 pm

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

what???

are you saying that abortion is a binary issue

or

are you asking me if i think abortion is a binary issue??

your written English is fucking shocking

So is your responses

Your claimed my arguments were binary

So potty mouth, lets here your views.

Or have you missed your afternoon nap.

i have no idea what youre talking about.

you said "you either support abortion or you dont"

that's binary thinking

binary means 2, either or, lack or white, right or wrong.

you're applying limited binary thinking to a very complicated issue as usual

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:42 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So is your responses

Your claimed my arguments were binary

So potty mouth, lets here your views.

Or have you missed your afternoon nap.

i have no idea what youre talking about.

you said "you either support abortion or you dont"

that's binary thinking

binary means 2, either or, lack or white, right or wrong.

you're applying limited binary thinking to a very complicated issue as usual

So another one that claims something without reasoning.

Priceless.

Its not complicated at all, when you view women having control over their own bodies.

Take your time smells

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:50 pm

Thorin wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

i have no idea what youre talking about.

you said "you either support abortion or you dont"

that's binary thinking

binary means 2, either or, lack or white, right or wrong.

you're applying limited binary thinking to a very complicated issue as usual

So another one that claims something without reasoning.

Priceless.

Its not complicated at all, when you view women having control over their own bodies.

Take your time smells

you mean apart from when the men take control of womens bodies and force them to have abortions??

or does that never happen in didgeland??

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:55 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So another one that claims something without reasoning.

Priceless.

Its not complicated at all, when you view women having control over their own bodies.

Take your time smells

you mean apart from when the men take control of womens bodies and force them to have abortions??

or does that never happen in didgeland??

That is not woman having control over their own bodies is it smelly?

Doh

And you claim to understand English.

Would you like me to dumb it down further for you to understand smells?

by eddie Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:06 pm

Most things and moral issues in life are not simply "black and white."

You can believe in something but still have reservations about some aspects of it.

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:08 pm

eddie wrote:Most things and moral issues in life are not simply "black and white."

You can believe in something but still have reservations about some aspects of it.

Having reservations yourself is one thing when it effects you that individual. Which you have the choice to decide on, but is it right to deny another woman control over her own body, based on your reservations?

by Raggamuffin Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:14 pm

I thinks it's right to deny women abortions on the grounds of sex, eye colour, or any other stupid reason.

by Guest Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I thinks it's right to deny women abortions on the grounds of sex, eye colour, or any other stupid reason.

And there you go, Rags wants to control other women based on her reservations.

I would also add that to claim eye colour, really is the poorest of straw man arguments.

There is a very simple reason why.

by Sponsored content