Ellipsis - // Your thinking is somewhat arbitrary. For example, it could be argued that she has the choice pre-conception (use contraception) and gives it up upon conception. //
That is potentially true, but we all know that contraception is not fool-proof, it can, and does fail.
// Or it could be argued that she continues to have the choice past 24 weeks of pregnancy (illegal abortion) - which you seem to advocate? //
No I don't advocate illegal abortion - but surely the whole point of Mr RM's declaration is that she should not have the choice at all - once pregnant, she is compelled to deliver her baby to term, no exceptions whatsoever.
//Or it could even be argued that she should be allowed the choice post-birth - the termination of a live baby or child in order to give the woman "control of her own life and future", as you put it; Catholics see that as little different to terminating a foetus. //
No, I don't believe that termination of a live baby can be sanctioned in any civilised society. And I don't believe that any Catholic, or any civilised human being, faith-carrying or not, would wish to see any full-term baby terminated under any circumstances.
//Who decides where the boundaries are drawn? The point is that it is not the individual woman, but the society in which she lives, i.e. in your words "complete strangers". Then the woman can choose within those boundaries. Outside of those boundaries, it is exactly complete strangers who have the final say. //
This is where I come upon the moral dilemma - I don't believe that anyone except the mother should have the final say on the continuation of the pregnancy. It is not a civilised society where strangers make her carry a foetus to delivery against her will.
// He said it was his own opinion and had no wish to foist it on anyone else and had a right to their own opinions. What's wrong with that? //
Because foisting it on other people is exactly what he did! If a journalist asks you for an opinion, and you don't wish to 'foist it on other people', since you are a politician with an image to protect, then don't give your opinion!
To me, the serious error of judgement in Mr RM voicing his contrary view as though he had no choice in the matter, and that doing so makes him honest and honourable, is ridiculous.
Part of being an adult, and certainly part of being an MP, is learning to tailor your verbal output to your recipient - fine at home with family and friends, not fine when speaking to the media.
What next? Is Mr RM going to say he 'believes in plain speaking' - the standard excuse for people too boorish to know that their rudeness is unacceptable?
// i.e. he's a loon, but as long as he admits to being a loon and doesn't try to foist his looniness upon us, he has every right to be our next Prime Minister. //
If you can find a politician who does not wish to foist his views and opinions on the electorate, I will show you a failed politician. By definition, they are elected because they speak their views, and say what they will do for their electorate. They may not use the term 'foist' - but that is precisely what they do - why else do they want to be politicians?
// At least he was being honest, unlike most politicians who like to try to be all things to all men.
Agree with that. I do like a principled politician. //
So do I - but I expect him to be mindful of what he is saying, and not attempt to be guiless and innocent when speaking so offensively, and then pretend that he doesn't know that actually, he is being neither.