ChatterBank5 mins ago
Jacob Rees-Mogg
At a complete loss about the so-called 'fury'. A staunch Catholic says he's against abortion and people are shocked? What next, Pope is a Catholic shock? Ridiculous, manufactured, insulting to Catholics. Tomorrow's front page: "Man found in bed with his wife"?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by scooping. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Smow - in my teaching career I have known a 12-yr-old to be pregnant and give birth. This, obviously, has to be the result of a rape as a 12 year-old cannot give consent. This particular girl was 'on the game', however, so it is a different circumstance to the one you envisage. I, personally, would class that situation i.e. an innocent child who was raped as an 'extreme circumstance'.
It is hugely problematical andy-hughes. I'm not trying to lay down the law, but the child's future must also, surely be taken into account? I'm so glad I'm not R.C. - or am I? It must be great to have the rules laid down so simply for you.
I wish I could give a clear-cut answer - I can't. I think we will be debating this for millennia to come. Mostly, women's fertility is in their own hands - exceptionally, it isn't and then this question arises.
I wish I could give a clear-cut answer - I can't. I think we will be debating this for millennia to come. Mostly, women's fertility is in their own hands - exceptionally, it isn't and then this question arises.
jourdain - //It is hugely problematical andy-hughes. I'm not trying to lay down the law, but the child's future must also, surely be taken into account?//
It is a massive moral dilemma, and I am always glad it is not my decision to make.
But I have to come back to my bottom line, that no-one should have the right to make any woman carry to term a baby she does not want.
That is not to say that it is a cut-and-dried issue, very very far from it, but I am not comfortable with the concept of complete strangers who have no input into the future of the mother or child, having the final say on whether or not they decide she has to be a brood mare, or have control of her own life and future.
It is a massive moral dilemma, and I am always glad it is not my decision to make.
But I have to come back to my bottom line, that no-one should have the right to make any woman carry to term a baby she does not want.
That is not to say that it is a cut-and-dried issue, very very far from it, but I am not comfortable with the concept of complete strangers who have no input into the future of the mother or child, having the final say on whether or not they decide she has to be a brood mare, or have control of her own life and future.
> I am not comfortable with the concept of complete strangers who have no input into the future of the mother or child, having the final say on whether or not they decide she has ... control of her own life and future.
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. Or it could be argued that she continues to have the choice past 24 weeks of pregnancy (illegal abortion) - which you seem to advocate? 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.
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.
> 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?
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.
> 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.
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. Or it could be argued that she continues to have the choice past 24 weeks of pregnancy (illegal abortion) - which you seem to advocate? 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.
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.
> 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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
The current legal limit for abortion is based primarily on the idea that beyond that age it's at least possible (at around 50% chance) for the baby to survive outside the womb. It seems to me to make some sort of sense that as long as the fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for survival then it's not independently "alive" and, in such cases, the mother's rights to self-determination don't really threaten the baby's.
Beyond that abortions can still be allowed in exceptional circumstances, if there is a serious and imminent risk of life, but it seems to me that this resolves the question. Not entirely to everyone's satisfaction, I'm sure -- but at least it's consistent, and doesn't open up the "slippery slope" of 'post-birth abortion', ie murder.
Beyond that abortions can still be allowed in exceptional circumstances, if there is a serious and imminent risk of life, but it seems to me that this resolves the question. Not entirely to everyone's satisfaction, I'm sure -- but at least it's consistent, and doesn't open up the "slippery slope" of 'post-birth abortion', ie murder.
> And I don't believe that any Catholic ... would wish to see any full-term baby terminated under any circumstances.
andy-hughes, I said exactly the opposite - that Catholics saw abortions as equivalent to aborting a full-term baby, i.e. very bad indeed. It all comes down to where one sees life as beginning.
andy-hughes, I said exactly the opposite - that Catholics saw abortions as equivalent to aborting a full-term baby, i.e. very bad indeed. It all comes down to where one sees life as beginning.
I wold guess that Mr Rees-Mogg has balanced the advantages of being seen as an honest man who does not fight shy of expressing his views, against the negativity he will receive, based on what those views are.
As I said, it is impossible to 'badger' any politician - you don't get to be a successful MP without thinking on your feet, and knowing exactly what you are going to say before you say it.
As I said, it is impossible to 'badger' any politician - you don't get to be a successful MP without thinking on your feet, and knowing exactly what you are going to say before you say it.
//you don't get to be a successful MP without thinking on your feet, and knowing exactly what you are going to say before you say it. //
After all her years in politics apparently without thinking at all and certainly without knowing what she's talking about, Diane Abbott seems to have managed it. ;o)
After all her years in politics apparently without thinking at all and certainly without knowing what she's talking about, Diane Abbott seems to have managed it. ;o)
//part of being an MP, is learning to tailor your verbal output to your recipient.//
Giving a speech etc, I agree.
So when Piers looms in front of you and demands your opinion on abortion?
You refuse to reply? Lie? Try to change the subject to the weather?
Or tell him what your true belief is, which after all Piers knew anyway?
That is in a way the premise of this thread, anyone knowing anything about Jacob could have told you his beliefs.
Giving a speech etc, I agree.
So when Piers looms in front of you and demands your opinion on abortion?
You refuse to reply? Lie? Try to change the subject to the weather?
Or tell him what your true belief is, which after all Piers knew anyway?
That is in a way the premise of this thread, anyone knowing anything about Jacob could have told you his beliefs.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul9 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Uk Economy Is Headed For The Worst Of...
News22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
ChatterBank36 mins ago
