thank you Bails.
And I mean that as a warning, not as support for him.
thank god for that
Take him seriously. And I mean that as a warning, not as support for him.
My thoughts too. Beneath the P.G Woodhouse exterior is somebody quite dangerous.
Look at the mess the last few media friendly affable buffoons have got us in to.
its a pretty safe bet he'd support the pushing through of any such horrific legislation were it to occur.
Wouldn't that require the majority of parliament to agree with him on a matter of concience?
You really don't get this 'democracy' thing, do you?
Well we are certainly moving away from the moderates of the last 20 years (on both sides). Add Brexit to this and the whole thing feels like we are going to end up back in the UK circa. 1966.
Tom_W1987 - Member
Im not sure his abortion stance would make him more popular.as a catholic will he ban contraception as well?
We need stronger womb border controls, not less. As the Conservatives keep telling us, there are too many people in the UK.
Did you actually watch the clip of just start frothing at the headline?
He very democratically accepts that his personal opinion conflicts with that of others. I don't get any inclination from that clip that he's planning to change anything.
While freedom of choice and freedom of expression are to be protected, I kind of struggle with this. Yes, he's not saying he'd outlaw it, but he is saying that he actively disapproves and voted against it (could have abstained, which would to me have been a 'I'm not for it but I also respect in this age it's not for me to tell others how to behave on this / these matters')
The issue is whether his views being incompatible with a country that mainly doesn't have an issue with these matters, makes him a suitable potential leader for that country. Can he set aside his views on these matters when they are apparently so deeply held? Farron felt he couldn't.
its a pretty safe bet he'd [b]support[/b] the pushing through of any such horrific legislation were it to occur.
Wouldn't that require the majority of parliament to agree with him on a matter of concience?You really don't get this 'democracy' thing, do you?
Err, it's possible to support something without a majority. It might not get through without a majority voting in favour, but someone can still support something without a majority.
Ninfan, thanks for the condescension there. Classy of you. If i may take a leaf out of your book there for a moment, look up the definition of the word 'support' that I actually used, and pay attention to the context of the rest of the statement i made. It seems you chose to ignore the information-and points- Bails supplied regarding his voting record. I am aware of what democracy is and isn't. He would, in all likelyhood, vote for such legislation- [u]if we take a look at his record[/u]-for some evidence. His 'conscience' or whatever martian signals control him would lead him to vote in favour of the end to gay marriage and/or making abortion illegal.
I hate to agree with Ninfan, but (and I'm being Devil's Advocate here) if you're anti abortion, then the circumstances should be pretty immaterial. Two wrongs don't make a right, killing the unborn child doesn't make the other bad thing not happen.
I disagree.. I don't agree with, but can just about understand (misguided IMO) people who don't believe in abortion after consensual sex, as if you're prepared to potentially conceive then you should be prepared for the consequences..
However when conception has been violently forced upon an individual, then I don't understand what kind of person, religious or otherwise, genuinely believes the correct thing to do would be to carry and raise the child..
Be interesting to see if he believes in that bible passage about rapists having to marry the victim and pay her father 2 silver coins as punishment..
However when conception has been violently forced upon an individual, then I don't understand what kind of person, religious or otherwise, genuinely believes the correct thing to do would be to carry and raise the child..
On the other hand, if you believe that human life begins at conception, you may not understand why someone else might advocate the murder of a child that has committed no crime.
Farron had to resign for being a Christian let's hope this **** gets his arse kicked for it as well.
So if you are Christian then you aren't allowed to be in a political party then?
While any socially conservative policies supported by Mogg would struggle to get through parliament, if he became Tory leader and hence PM it'd be a fairly safe bet that we wouldn't see much in the way of socially liberal legislation coming up for debate so on that level his personal morality is an issue.
Be interesting to see if he believes in that bible passage about rapists having to marry the victim and pay her father 2 silver coins as punishment..
I'm pretty sure you're stretching at the limits of credulity there to link "being christian" with believing or following every single little bit of the bible.
So if you are Christian then you aren't allowed to be in a political party then?
His religion and stance on gay marriage were the main thing the press and some on here attacked farron for.
Let's not forget that mogg has no beard, the hypocritical ****.
May he burn in hell for his sins.
Maybe in a mogg government the DUP will be a moderating influence.
I ****ing hate tories.
You are not allowed to be a Christian - FULL STOP - get with the game, remember where you are....and as for CATHOLIC
While freedom of choice and freedom of expression are to be protected, I kind of struggle with this. Yes, he's not saying he'd outlaw it, but he is saying that he actively disapproves and voted against it
I am not a racist BUT.....
The issue is whether his views being incompatible with a country that mainly doesn't have an issue with these matters, makes him a suitable potential leader for that country. Can he set aside his views....
Clearly, he said as much.
he said as much
Case closed then
You would imagine so....
"On the other hand, if you believe that human life begins at conception, you may not understand why someone else might advocate the murder of a child that has committed no crime.POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST"
It is a belief born out of deep rooted misogyny not rational thought. His belief carries no weight, a clump of cells is not an individual with conscience or self determination.
He'd probably happily kill a fully grown primate though.
He can believe what he wants but I reserve the right to think of him little better than a rapist.
I’m sure Jacob and I would get on like a house on fire. Preferably his.
Rachel
Thrilled to watch this a minute ago. My daughter has just started year 7 at a Catholic secondary school this morning. If they try and instill this horrendous doctrine into her I'll expect her to stand up and throw their intolerance right back.at them and down their throats. And this **** want to.be leader of the country...? Scary shit!!!!
I’m sure Jacob and I would get on like a house on fire. Preferably his.
Dinner with the Moggs
The dulcet tones of tolerance ring out..
...why on earth would you send your daughter to a Catholic School??? Scary shit...
However when conception has been violently forced upon an individual, then I don't understand what kind of person, religious or otherwise, genuinely believes the correct thing to do would be to carry and raise the child..
You'd accept the correct thing would be to carry and raise the child after 24 weeks.
I assume that the reasons you think that's correct are the same as Rees Mogg. You're just quibbling about where the magic point occurs.
a clump of cells is not an individual with conscience or self determination
Nor is an unborn child at 30 weeks.
His belief carries no weight, a clump of cells is not an individual with conscience or self determination.
Neither, it could be argued, is a newborn baby. So why is killing one murder and not killing the other misogyny? Why does your belief carry more weight than Rees Mogg's?
Neither, it could be argued, is a newborn baby
it could be argued
but you'd loose that argument
Mogg has said these things so publicly because he knows they are unpopular
He doesnt want the top job while Brexit is going on, he knows that its going to taint the PM
thats why Maybot is still in the job, shes so damaged that it doesnt really matter
her colleagues will happily let her soak up the blame for it all then start knifing each other when they think they have enough distance.
You'd accept the correct thing would be to carry and raise the child after 24 weeks. I assume that the reasons you think that's correct are the same as Rees Mogg. You're just quibbling about where the magic point occurs.
Yeah, but I'd use science and evidence to come to my conclusion, not some outdated beliefs based upon an ancient book about a fictional character in the sky.
The dulcet tones of tolerance ring out.....why on earth would you send your daughter to a Catholic School??? Scary shit...
You do have to wonder exactly what sort of person would send their child to a Catholic school and then complain about the risk of them being indoctrinated in the beliefs of the Catholic Church 😯
I can only presume that it's the same type of mindset that leads to people taking a job miles away from home because it pays better and then complaining about the time and cost of the commute 😆
Neither, it could be argued, is a newborn baby. So why is killing one murder and not killing the other misogyny? Why does your belief carry more weight than Rees Mogg's?
That's my take on it. When life begins is completely arbitary. You could argue an person with advanced dementia was no longer a person. You could reasonably argue (as ancient Romans and Greeks did) that a newborn babdy wasn't enough of a person to have an automatic right to life. You could go the other way and argue that every time people of the opposite gender who were in a position to have unprotected sex, but failed to, had cost a human life.
It's completely subjective. Even if you don't agree, 'conception' seems like a perfectly logical point to consider life to start. I'd consider murdering a woman who was 16 weeks pregnant a worse crime than murdering an individual.
it could be arguedbut you'd loose that argument
I'm not arguing, I'm trying to question beliefs that are so ingrained the individuals spouting them don't even realise they are beliefs.
But I'm interested in your opinion. When DOES a "clump of cells" become and "individual with conscience or self determination"?
(I don't know. I would have said at about 4/5 years old)
I'd use science and evidence to come to my conclusion
You'd use science and evidence to answer a purely philosophical question?
Perhaps you could state the evidence that a meaningful human life begins at 24 weeks rather than conception, or 23 weeks, or 3 days old.
But I'm interested in your opinion. When DOES a "clump of cells" become and "individual with conscience or self determination"?
(I don't know. I would have said at about 4/5 years old)
I think it's a *lot* earlier than 4/5 years, but it's probably after the birth IMHO.
That's my take on it. When life begins is completely arbitary. You could argue an person with advanced dementia was no longer a person. You could reasonably argue (as ancient Romans and Greeks did) that a newborn babdy wasn't enough of a person to have an automatic right to life. You could go the other way and argue that every time people of the opposite gender who were in a position to have unprotected sex, but failed to, had cost a human life.
The latter point is some sort of fallacy, I just cant be bothered to determine which one it is.
I mean, it's so philosophically and logically trite I'd rather gargle buckshot than engage with it.
There is a perfectly logical line between infanticide and abortion, does it feel pain?
joeydeacon - Member
Yeah, but I'd use science and evidence to come to my conclusion, not some outdated beliefs based upon an ancient book about a fictional character in the sky.
But the issue/compromise at the moment is that the latest date for an abortion is around the same time as advances has allowed the baby to become viable.
Frankly it's a minefield and I don't envy anyone who has to make decisions in it.
But stifling the debate by denouncing all those who believe that 'life' starts earlier as only following the guidance "ancient book about a fictional character in the sky", is insulting to everyone.
But its true....
Did you expect a man who named his child "Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher" to be rational and anything other than a world class bore?
Tom_W1987 - Member
But its true....
I'm atheist and I'm at best uneasy about abortion.
That makes one of us then....
Id feel more guilty about shooting a grouse.
How come the I'm-more-liberal-than-thou STW bedwetters are so keen to respect the most outlandish beliefs - whether religious or cultural - and yet you refuse to respect the religious beliefs of JRM?
There are none more bigoted than self-professed liberals.
Because he is a ****.
I’m sure Jacob and I would get on like a house on fire. Preferably his.
Speaking of houses on fire. Wonder how he will get on with the DUP lot?
councilof10 - Member
How come the I'm-more-liberal-than-thou STW bedwetters are so keen to respect the most outlandish beliefs - whether religious or cultural - and yet you refuse to respect the religious beliefs of JRM?There are none more bigoted than self-professed liberals.
please show me where us lefties respect these outlandsh beliefs?
I think its all in your head!
How come the I'm-more-liberal-than-thou STW bedwetters are so keen to respect the most outlandish beliefs - whether religious or cultural - and yet you refuse to respect the religious beliefs of JRM?
I've been banned more than once for crossing the line in threads on terrorism...
please show me where us lefties respect these outlandsh beliefs?
If he was a moderate muslim, who voted in a similar way, maybe even voted against pro-alcohol laws; took a hard line on decency or pornography laws, the sit-down-pissers of STW would feel compelled to demonstrate how "right-on" they are by supporting his right to let his faith dictate his views.
The reason people are so intolerant of Mogg's views aren't because he's a Catholic, it's because he's posh!
Like I said, bigots. Bitter little bigots.
There is a perfectly logical line between infanticide and abortion, does it feel pain?
At what age can a fetus feel pain?
But the issue/compromise at the moment is that the latest date for an abortion is around the same time as advances has allowed the baby to become viable.Frankly it's a minefield and I don't envy anyone who has to make decisions in it.
Yeah. I was reading awhile back that unborn babies at 23 weeks can survive but always with disability, often severe. Because of this many doctors abroad do not keep 23 week old fetuses alive. In the UK we keep them alive at 23 weeks and some horrifically disabled people are born because of that. Who's wrong? ****ed if I know. Beats me how anyone can say 24 weeks is the only valid answer and everyone else is wrong.
Frankly, it seems to be the three most logical points for considering 'life' to have begun are birth, conception and perhaps 3 months.
It's that same phenomenon that makes kids like panto. An uber-stereo type caricature act that everyone thinks they can easily either boo or cheer, without having to try too hard to think about stuff.
A sad indictment of where our politics are.
Nahhh you're just a butt hurt conservative.
At what age can a fetus feel pain?
After the current abortion limit. Its easy to look it up.
the sit-down-pissers of STW
😯Like I said, bigots. Bitter little bigots.
I think we need to talk about your chakras
perhaps some crystal healing will realign your energy flows?
[img] 
[/img]
Frankly, it seems to be the three most logical points for considering 'life' to have begun are birth, conception and perhaps 3 months.
Misses the point, we arent arguing where life began - we are arguing over when we can morally terminate it.
Moggs interpretation of that is soley based on a book of sky fairies and myth.
After the current abortion limit.
Cite!
Its easy to look it up.
Good, you won't take long to find it, then.
Frankly, it seems to be the three most logical points for considering 'life' to have begun are birth, conception and perhaps 3 months.
That would make sense to me but I'm glad I've never been in a position where I've had to make a decision based on this.
Third trimester or 27 weeks.
Well after your three month limit.
Third trimester or 27 weeks.
Cite!
I'm glad I've never been in a position where I've had to make a decision based on this.
Ditto.
[url= https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ ]Alive but asleep.[/url]
This ones for councilof10,
quick look & the first 4 muslim MPs came to mind voting records....
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24958/rushanara_ali/bethnal_green_and_bow/votes
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24822/nadhim_zahawi/stratford-on-avon/votes
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11087/khalid_mahmood/birmingham,_perry_barr/votes
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11878/sadiq_khan/tooting/votes
now whos the biggot again?
awaits another urine related response
Hah!
https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
You are seriously claiming that article supports a definitive 27 weeks? It's packed with detail about how hard it is to know!
However, let's go with your claim that 27 weeks is the definitive point where fetusses can feel pain and therefore the point where it's no longer ok to remove them.
That means you're agree with Rees Mogg that 24 weeks is not the appropriate point. The only difference is you think it's wrong one way and he thinks it's wrong the other way.
This ones for councilof10,
quick look & the first 4 muslim MPs came to mind voting records....
I think you need to go back and reread what I posted...
I think its probably best to be cautious....hence 24 werks.
.... its packed with detail you don't understand.... so you think the evidrnce doesnt support 27 weeks because you dont understand all the available evidence... but fMRI doesnt lie....
I think its probably brst to be cautious....
I'd have thought you'd argue the cautious approach would be not to force women who are victims of rape to "carry and raise the child".
Instead you're arguing that caution lies with favoring the child's 'right' to life over the mothers right not to have an unwanted child. Are you Rees-Mogg in disguise?
zippykona - MemberFarron had to resign for being a Christian
No he didn't, he resigned after completely mishandling the issue, and refusing on several occasions to clarify his own position where his personal opinion runs counter to party policy, it was as much about credibility and competence as it was about faith.
Farron had to resign for being a Christian
No he didn't,
Yes he did, he stated exactly why he resigned:
Even so, I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in.That's why I have chosen to step down as leader of the Liberal Democrats."
'd have thought you'd argue the cautious approach would be not to force women who are victims of rape to "carry and raise the child".Instead you're arguing that caution lies with favoring the child's 'right' to life over the mothers right not to have an unwanted child. Are you Rees-Mogg in disguise
I'd argue that as well, but Mogg doesnt care about women having to bring up children born out of rape. So I'm not arguing from that angle.
Yes he did, he stated exactly why he resigned:
Good.
Marx and the French had the right idea.
I'd have thought you'd argue the cautious approach would be not to force women who are victims of rape to "carry and raise the child".Instead you're arguing that caution lies with favoring the child's 'right' to life over the mothers right not to have an unwanted child. Are you Rees-Mogg in disguise?
I'd argue that as well,
Yes, you probably would. 😀
Good.
I made no comment on whether it was good or bad. Merely that that was the reason.
the sit-down-pissers of STW would feel compelled to demonstrate how "right-on" they are by supporting his right to let his faith dictate his views.
Dont suppose you have any evidence for that? Also I wouldnt exactly call someone pushing those positions a moderate. Unless the alcohol laws was requiring everyone to drink.
apologies for my atrocious typing btw... I still dont get on with touchscreen phones. 😀
He shouldn't have a view on it. Nothing to do with him. The guys a ****
I'd love to take him to the Philippines, my wifes country - to show him what his beloved religion has done to the country and what it's family planning laws or lack of have done.
Someone posted this pic on Twitter, seems strangely appropriate for this discussion.
[img] 
:large[/img]
joefm - Member
He shouldn't have a view on it. Nothing to do with him. The guys a ****
He's a politician, it's his job to have a view on things.
anyhow - I'm going to chill out now.... my wife/university sweethearts Visa renewal went through... i should be celebrating. Have a fun argument guys, Im flouncing for a bit.
His position is ridiculous! "I believe/do whatever the Pope says!" FFS
His position is ridiculous! "I believe/do whatever the Pope says!" FFS
Interesting, so you presumably support the repeal of the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829?
That is definitely the point they were making well spotted.
