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

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.

Thoughtful answer Thor.
Abortion is a very complex issue....basically it should always be the womans right to choose...but  within a specific time frame.
After that individual circumstances should be dealt with.

Do you think  the man/sperm donor/husband/partner should ever have the right to make the final decision?
I can think of  past cases in the UK  where the partner of the pregnant woman has tried (and failed)  to stop abortion happening.

Syl wrote:Thoughtful answer Thor.
Abortion is a very complex issue....basically it should always be the womans right to choose...but  within a specific time frame.
After that individual circumstances should be dealt with.

Do you think  the man/sperm donor/husband/partner should ever have the right to make the final decision?
I can think of cases in the past where the partner of the pregnant woman has tried (and failed)  to stop abortion happening.

That is what I said and I make it very clear that the woman should always have the right to decide.

So for one i do not understand your last point.

My point is on how we are in the main pro-choice and at the same pro-life, when we decide limitations on this.

Again, my view is always going to be on a woman to decide.

I cannot stress that enough

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Thoughtful answer Thor.
Abortion is a very complex issue....basically it should always be the womans right to choose...but  within a specific time frame.
After that individual circumstances should be dealt with.

Do you think  the man/sperm donor/husband/partner should ever have the right to make the final decision?
I can think of cases in the past where the partner of the pregnant woman has tried (and failed)  to stop abortion happening.

That is what I said and I make it very clear that the woman should always have the right to decide.

So for one i do not understand your last point.

My point is on how we are in the main pro-choice and at the same pro-life, when we decide limitations on this.

Again, my view is always going to be on a woman to decide.

I cannot stress that enough

Yes I just saw you did answer that...a man should never have the legal  right to interfere, even if its his child that's being aborted.

I think as far as abortion is concerned you can never be both pro choice and pro life....they contradict each other.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

That is what I said and I make it very clear that the woman should always have the right to decide.

So for one i do not understand your last point.

My point is on how we are in the main pro-choice and at the same pro-life, when we decide limitations on this.

Again, my view is always going to be on a woman to decide.

I cannot stress that enough

Yes I just saw you did answer that...a man should never have the legal  right to interfere, even if its his child that's being aborted.

I think as far as abortion is concerned you can never be both pro choice and pro life....they contradict each other.

Not really, as its about when something is a human life.

I mean would you agree to a woman to abort, at 8 months, because she decided she did not want that child?

This is illegal to do so.

So its not a contradiction, but a disagreement on when that fetus becomes a human life.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Yes I just saw you did answer that...a man should never have the legal  right to interfere, even if its his child that's being aborted.

I think as far as abortion is concerned you can never be both pro choice and pro life....they contradict each other.

Not really, as its about when something is a human life.

I mean would you agree to a woman to abort, at 8 months, because she decided she did not want that child?

This is illegal to do so.

So its not a contradiction, but a disagreement on when that fetus becomes a human life.

Obviously abortion should be carried out as soon as possible, the 'pro life' brigade don't agree with abortion at any stage do they?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Not really, as its about when something is a human life.

I mean would you agree to a woman to abort, at 8 months, because she decided she did not want that child?

This is illegal to do so.

So its not a contradiction, but a disagreement on when that fetus becomes a human life.

Obviously abortion should be carried out as soon as possible, the 'pro life' brigade don't agree with abortion at any stage do they?

Or more importantly, people are responsible when having sex with protection, should be the main view here. Where if not, then as you say, they should look to have an abortion, as soon as they are aware. Again i stand with the right of that woman to decide.

https://www.thoughtco.com/pro-life-vs-pro-choice-721108


"The pro-life and pro-choice movements primarily come into conflict on the issue of abortion.
The pro-life movement argues that even a non-viable, undeveloped human life is sacred and must be protected by the government. Abortion must not be legal according to this model, nor should it be practiced on an illegal basis."

Syl wrote:https://www.thoughtco.com/pro-life-vs-pro-choice-721108


"The pro-life and pro-choice movements primarily come into conflict on the issue of abortion.
The pro-life movement argues that even a non-viable, undeveloped human life is sacred and must be protected by the government. Abortion must not be legal according to this model, nor should it be practiced on an illegal basis."

I am well aware of all the arguments Syl
Hence my view that a woman has a right over the say over her body, but, when a child is born at 22 weeks premature and lives. We now enter territory, where that child could be denied a life.
So we need some sense here with people on this to discuss rationally.

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.

Homophobe!

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Not really, as its about when something is a human life.

I mean would you agree to a woman to abort, at 8 months, because she decided she did not want that child?

This is illegal to do so.

So its not a contradiction, but a disagreement on when that fetus becomes a human life.

Obviously abortion should be carried out as soon as possible, the 'pro life' brigade don't agree with abortion at any stage do they?

whereas the pro choice are calling for the time frame to be extended so that abortions can carried out at the point of delivery

Syl wrote:Thoughtful answer Thor.
Abortion is a very complex issue....basically it should always be the womans right to choose...but  within a specific time frame.
After that individual circumstances should be dealt with.

Do you think  the man/sperm donor/husband/partner should ever have the right to make the final decision?
I can think of  past cases in the UK  where the partner of the pregnant woman has tried (and failed)  to stop abortion happening.

The law does not say that a woman has the right to choose actually, but the law is often not upheld.

Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

Homophobe!

How is that homophobic?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Thoughtful answer Thor.
Abortion is a very complex issue....basically it should always be the womans right to choose...but  within a specific time frame.
After that individual circumstances should be dealt with.

Do you think  the man/sperm donor/husband/partner should ever have the right to make the final decision?
I can think of  past cases in the UK  where the partner of the pregnant woman has tried (and failed)  to stop abortion happening.

The law does not say that a woman has the right to choose actually, but the law is often not upheld.

A woman has a right to decide, unless you think any living organism, can take control of your body.

Do you?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Homophobe!

How is that homophobic?

everything is homophobic because racism

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

How is that homophobic?

everything is homophobic because racism  

That makes no sense.

It comes down this - we are always told we can believe in whatever we want because nobody should judge us - if someone believes abortion is wrong under any circumstances then why do we want to change their belief - they have the right to believe this way because we all have our freedom of thought belief and speech right now .
We can believe in God or not and why should anyone want to change what we believe or don't believe ?
This is the way the world is now -we are told all the time that whatever makes us happy then we shouldn't be judged - if believing in God and the bible which is against abortion is what someone believes that's nobody's business to judge or try to say it is wrong .
See how it is now we all have our right to do say think believe in whatever we want and pretty soon we will seeing ridiculous things which will have to be accepted as normal however abnormal anyone thinks it is .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:It comes down this - we are always told we can believe in whatever we want because nobody should judge us - if someone believes abortion is wrong under any circumstances then why do we want to change their belief - they have the right to believe this way because we all have our freedom of thought belief and speech right now .
We can believe in God or not and why should anyone want to change what we believe or don't believe ?
This is the way the world is now -we are told all the time that whatever makes us happy then we shouldn't be judged - if believing in God and the bible which is against abortion is what someone believes that's nobody's business to judge or try to say it is wrong .
See how it is now we all have our right to do say think believe in whatever we want and pretty soon we will seeing ridiculous things which will have to be accepted as normal however abnormal anyone thinks it is .

You do have a right to say about your beliefs

Its a major problem when you attempt to enforce those beliefs onto others.

As the same could apply to your thinking, that it would be ridiculous if people accepting your religious beliefs as normal, when to many it would be abnormal Dibs.

So nobody is denying you being able to believe in God. The most hypocritical part here though is this.
Nobody says you cannot preach to others, yet when I reason against religious beliefs, that is somehow wrong.

Do you not see the double standard?

There is a middle way. To say that it should always be the woman's choice is not necessarily right because that would involve lifestyle abortions, which I don't really agree with. On the other hand, do say that abortion under any circumstances is wrong is also too harsh.

In this country we don't technically have abortion on demand - ie, a lifestyle choice - we have conditions, but the law isn't upheld.

If a woman doesn't want a baby, it's her choice.

eddie wrote:If a woman doesn't want a baby, it's her choice.

or,,,


if a woman wants to kill her baby, that's cool

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:If a woman doesn't want a baby, it's her choice.

or,,,


if a woman wants to kill her baby, that's cool

Yep.

eddie wrote:If a woman doesn't want a baby, it's her choice.

not the babys choice??

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Yes I just saw you did answer that...a man should never have the legal  right to interfere, even if its his child that's being aborted.

I think as far as abortion is concerned you can never be both pro choice and pro life....they contradict each other.

Not really, as its about when something is a human life.

I mean would you agree to a woman to abort, at 8 months, because she decided she did not want that child?

This is illegal to do so.

So its not a contradiction, but a disagreement on when that fetus becomes a human life.

The cut off point for abortion in the UK is 24 weeks, which is very late imo....but thats what the legal termination limit is, unless extreme circumstances present.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Thoughtful answer Thor.
Abortion is a very complex issue....basically it should always be the womans right to choose...but  within a specific time frame.
After that individual circumstances should be dealt with.

Do you think  the man/sperm donor/husband/partner should ever have the right to make the final decision?
I can think of  past cases in the UK  where the partner of the pregnant woman has tried (and failed)  to stop abortion happening.

The law does not say that a woman has the right to choose actually, but the law is often not upheld.

I think nowadays not many women (if any) would be refused an abortion unless the pregnancy had exceeded the time limit for a termination to be carried out.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Not really, as its about when something is a human life.

I mean would you agree to a woman to abort, at 8 months, because she decided she did not want that child?

This is illegal to do so.

So its not a contradiction, but a disagreement on when that fetus becomes a human life.

The cut off point for abortion in the UK is 24 weeks, which is very late imo....but thats what the legal termination limit is, unless extreme circumstances present.

As seen, the view is subjective on how many weeks.

Again to me the right is with the woman.

Thorin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:It comes down this - we are always told we can believe in whatever we want because nobody should judge us - if someone believes abortion is wrong under any circumstances then why do we want to change their belief - they have the right to believe this way because we all have our freedom of thought belief and speech right now .
We can believe in God or not and why should anyone want to change what we believe or don't believe ?
This is the way the world is now -we are told all the time that whatever makes us happy then we shouldn't be judged - if believing in God and the bible which is against abortion is what someone believes that's nobody's business to judge or try to say it is wrong .
See how it is now we all have our right to do say think believe in whatever we want and pretty soon we will seeing ridiculous things which will have to be accepted as normal however abnormal anyone thinks it is .

You do have a right to say about your beliefs

Its a major problem when you attempt to enforce those beliefs onto others.

I agree with that /\

He has a right to believe what he wants to, hopefully he wont ever use his position to influence others.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The cut off point for abortion in the UK is 24 weeks, which is very late imo....but thats what the legal termination limit is, unless extreme circumstances present.

As seen, the view is subjective on how many weeks.

Again to me the right is with the woman.

Legally her rights to abortion, unless there are special circumstances, ends at 6 months.
There has to be a cut off point, no one wants to see live fully formed babies killed.
I suppose the 6 month limit is decided because in medical terms, if a baby is born before 24 weeks its considered to be a miscarriage and doctors treat it as such.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


As seen, the view is subjective on how many weeks.

Again to me the right is with the woman.

Legally her rights to abortion, unless there are special circumstances, ends  at 6 months.
There has to be a cut off point, no one wants to see live fully formed babies killed.
I suppose the 6 month limit is decided because in medical terms, if a baby is born before 24 weeks its considered to be a miscarriage and doctors treat it as such.

Its always going to be a highly controversial subject over the time-frame.

What is beyond doubt is the poor religious views made on this. Which this Tory MP is going by. They are based on religious beliefs and do not take into account the woman or the fact a woman could die from an Ectopic pregnancy. So this is where religious idiocy comes to the fore, as they would place a woman's life at risk

Like Vod said, everyone is entitled to their views, and if you are religious, that will obviouly affect the way you see things.

Even when those views are dangerous, for eg Jehovas witnesses refuse blood transfusions even if their life depends on it, or plain ridiculous, Muslims have been known to refuse to sell the morning after pill.....for some religion usurps all other way of thinking.

Syl wrote:Like Vod said, everyone is entitled to their views, and if you are religious, that will obviouly affect the way you see things.

Even when those views are dangerous, for eg Jehovas witnesses refuse blood transfusions even if their life depends on it,  or plain ridiculous, Muslims have been known to refuse to sell the morning after pill.....for some religion usurps all other way of thinking.

I have no issue with people having views, but they also should be open on these views to all sides as I have shown throughout this debate. I mean this MP has 5 children, that will be raised based on his Catholic views and not on an open minded view on this issue. That I do take issue with, in how children have no say on whether they want to be religious, and that it is drummed into them from the earliest ages.

Just to chime in with a bit of my own brilliance:

* Imagine a woman who's 7 months pregnant. She's been suffering, right? Having morning sickness, disrupting her whole life, going to the doctor all the time, struggling with her big-ass belly, etc.

She's made a commitment at that point. I challenge anyone to dredge up a woman who would suddenly decide to abort that far along unless something went horribly wrong with the fetus' development.

* Abortion doesn't go against the Bible; in fact, it's never mentioned. The closest the Bible comes to mentioning abortion is Exodus 21:22-25, which says if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he has to pay a fine.

Some Christians believe abortion is murder (and you do have the right to that belief of course) but I'd point out the Bible also says in Genesis that Adam came to life when God breathed the breath of life into him, implying that Biblically, life begins with the first breath. Fetuses don't, obviously, breathe.

It's also really important for today's Christians to realize that they break rules in the Bible practically every day, and that they themselves don't agree with everything in the Bible. For example, if you follow the letter of the Bible, you not only have to conclude that slavery is OK -- nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery -- but also that if you free a slave, you're committing a sin, depriving someone else of their (apparently) rightful property.

* I believe in the right to choose. That doesn't mean I think it's great when a woman has an abortion -- I think it's one of the saddest things I can imagine, that a pregnancy would be so unwelcome that a woman would feel the need to end it.

We have to respect people's circumstances and understand that not everybody has the same advantages, nor have we all had the same obstacles to face.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


As seen, the view is subjective on how many weeks.

Again to me the right is with the woman.

Legally her rights to abortion, unless there are special circumstances, ends  at 6 months.
There has to be a cut off point, no one wants to see live fully formed babies killed.
I suppose the 6 month limit is decided because in medical terms, if a baby is born before 24 weeks its considered to be a miscarriage and doctors treat it as such.

There would always be an exception to the rule. A horribly disabled baby - no arms or legs, brain damaged with 2 heads from a twin gone wrong? Every case needs separate consideration.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Thorin wrote:

How is that homophobic?

everything is homophobic because racism  

Ragga', Smelly'snowflake and co. have 'phobias and 'isms on the brain...

It's what makes their nasty little world go round..        

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

everything is homophobic because racism  

Ragga', Smelly'snowflake and co. have 'phobias and 'isms on the brain...

It's what makes their nasty little world go round..        

you escaped again??

Angry Andy wrote:

Syl wrote:

Legally her rights to abortion, unless there are special circumstances, ends  at 6 months.
There has to be a cut off point, no one wants to see live fully formed babies killed.
I suppose the 6 month limit is decided because in medical terms, if a baby is born before 24 weeks its considered to be a miscarriage and doctors treat it as such.

There would always be an exception to the rule. A horribly disabled baby - no arms or legs, brain damaged with 2 heads from a twin gone wrong? Every case needs separate consideration.

Quite, that's why I have pointed it out in a couple of my posts.

I think 24 weeks is a too far along for a termination (personally, I couldn't do it) and the cut off point should be about 12 weeks - unless there is something terribly wrong with the baby/foetus that is only discovered further along.

eddie wrote:I think 24 weeks is a too far along for a termination (personally, I couldn't do it) and the cut off point should be about 12 weeks - unless there is something terribly wrong with the baby/foetus that is only discovered further along.

I agree with you Eddie This is what a foetus looks like at 24 weeks,

"According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive."

at 24 weeks, its murder pure and simple

Yeah, that's just too much to even think about....12 weeks should be the very latest.

eddie wrote:Yeah, that's just too much to even think about....12 weeks should be the very latest.

and only then after intensive scrutiny.

i don't think "i fucked ten men in a gangbang and now im pregnant but its getting in the way of my party life so i want to abort it next Friday lunch time so i can get out drinking for the evening" is really an acceptable reason to abort

Unless certain tests have to be done, and some tests to show up  certain deformities and disabilities have to be done after a number of weeks to determine the results, or unless as the pregnancy progresses the mother becomes seriously ill, why should any woman wait before she decides on a termination.

Up to six  periods will have been missed, the most irregular woman would know well before 24 weeks that she is expecting, so there is no excuse really.
Once a woman consults a Dr and asks for a termination its usually carried out within 2 weeks.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:Yeah, that's just too much to even think about....12 weeks should be the very latest.

and only then after intensive scrutiny.

i don't think "i fucked ten men in a gangbang and now im pregnant but its getting in the way of my party life so i want to abort it next Friday lunch time so i can get out drinking for the evening" is really an acceptable reason to abort  

Of course it is.
Just because someone is an irresponsible idiot doesn't mean she has to have an unwanted child.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

and only then after intensive scrutiny.

i don't think "i fucked ten men in a gangbang and now im pregnant but its getting in the way of my party life so i want to abort it next Friday lunch time so i can get out drinking for the evening" is really an acceptable reason to abort  

Of course it is.
Just because someone is an irresponsible idiot doesn't mean she has to have an unwanted child.

she doesnt have to have it, she can give it up for adoption

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:Yeah, that's just too much to even think about....12 weeks should be the very latest.

and only then after intensive scrutiny.

i don't think "i fucked ten men in a gangbang and now im pregnant but its getting in the way of my party life so i want to abort it next Friday lunch time so i can get out drinking for the evening" is really an acceptable reason to abort  

She's morally corrupt if she thinks like that but I don't remove her right to not have a baby.

eddie wrote:If a woman doesn't want a baby, it's her choice.

Not according to the law. Maybe if they actually stuck to the law, women would be more responsible.

eddie wrote:I think 24 weeks is a too far along for a termination (personally, I couldn't do it) and the cut off point should be about 12 weeks - unless there is something terribly wrong with the baby/foetus that is only discovered further along.

Why do you think so? You just said it was fine to kill an unborn baby.

Some women get pregnant by accident. Or they get raped. What then, Rags?

eddie wrote:Some women get pregnant by accident. Or they get raped. What then, Rags?

That's not what I asked is it?

What about women who want an abortion because they baby's the "wrong" sex?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Some women get pregnant by accident. Or they get raped. What then, Rags?

That's not what I asked is it?

What about women who want an abortion because they baby's the "wrong" sex?

Doctors would not recommend her for one. A woman has to talk to certain medical professionals before they're put forward for a termination.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not what I asked is it?

What about women who want an abortion because they baby's the "wrong" sex?

Doctors would not recommend her for one. A woman has to talk to certain medical professionals before they're put forward for a termination.

So there are circumstances where you think an abortion should not be performed.