'Abortion is wrong even after rape': Jacob Rees-Mogg

Good heavens, I don't believe this headline, is the man mad, how on earth can he say such a thing - what are your thoughts?

Bit of a stink about this story, here is a reaction and good article in the Guardian....

Jacob Rees-Mogg isn’t old-fashioned, he’s a thoroughly modern bigot
 
Suzanne Moore




https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/06/jacob-rees-mogg-isnt-old-fashioned-thoroughly-modern-bigot-suzanne-moore

Typical of the Guardian and their leftie journos. She calls JRM a bigot - ha very ha - pot kettle black - isn`t she the bigot and that welsh git - a bigot is someone who is intolerant of other peoples` views. JRM is very tolerant of other peoples` views - the Guardian are not. JRM`s views are personal and private to his religion and he does not expect the rest of the world to agree with him - yet the Guardian does and aggressively pursues those that don`t agree with them.

I hate the way the press, particularly that Welsh git try to manoeuvre him into saying something extreme like "So you would make her have the child" - of course he wouldn`t you dick - he lives in the UK where it is against the law to "make" someone have a child. JRM wouldn`t "make" someone have a child. Piers Morgan and the Guardian stirring up trouble as usual - trying to get everyone to hate JRM.

FGS JRM is catholic and that`s what he believes. He is allowed. We are allowed to have religious beliefs in this country dearest Piers ......... and the bigoted journo that wrote the piece.

I was undecided about this at first but, having now read the tirade from Suzanne Moore, I'm firmly on the side of Mr Rees-Mogg being entitled to his opinion!

He can say what he believes, but saying it so publicly  then he must expect criticism, which is what he is getting!  I would say most Catholics would not believe such a thing, I am one of them.

It's a very old-fashioned Catholic view. I was 10, when Maman was pregnant with her fourth child and I was very worried about her, as recently a pregnant neighbour had died. She'd been in labour and the midwife took her to hospital, as there were complications. A Catholic hospital that is. So they choose to save the baby and let her die. With as result a widowed husband, father of 6 now :-(

Mimi wrote:I hate the way the press, particularly that Welsh git try to manoeuvre him into saying something extreme like "So you would make her have the child" - of course he wouldn`t you dick - he lives in the UK where it is against the law to "make" someone have a child.

That's semantics. The point that I'm sure was being made was, if, as Rees-Mogg believes should be the case, abortion wasn't an option, then there is no alternative for a woman that is pregnant following a rape than to have the child. Believing that the alternative should be prevented is to believe that the victim should be made to have the child.

What is wrong with exploring the obvious implication of the implementation of someone's belief and asking them to justify their belief in the face of those consequences?

candyfloss wrote:He can say what he believes, but saying it so publicly  then he must expect criticism, which is what he is getting!  I would say most Catholics would not believe such a thing, I am one of them.

Well some Catholics do - and he is allowed.  Anyway he was asked - i.e. put on the spot - and obviously would not lie.

He did justify his belief - he believes the life of the developing child is sacrosanct. End of.  He does not pontificate - he was asked.  I don`t think anyone even knew he was a Catholic before he was asked - what the hell does it matter.

Years ago no one poked into other peoples` beliefs - in fact I wouldn`t have known who was what - only that some went to a different school - why people have to make such a song and dance about religion I don`t know .....  unless it`s Islam of course !

The Guardian lot are acting as if it is a crime and he is a criminal that should be `outed` - sickening.

AndyB wrote:

Mimi wrote:I hate the way the press, particularly that Welsh git try to manoeuvre him into saying something extreme like "So you would make her have the child" - of course he wouldn`t you dick - he lives in the UK where it is against the law to "make" someone have a child.

That's semantics. The point that I'm sure was being made was, if, as Rees-Mogg believes should be the case, abortion wasn't an option, then there is no alternative for a woman that is pregnant following a rape than to have the child. Believing that the alternative should be prevented is to believe that the victim should be made to have the child.

What is wrong with exploring the obvious implication of the implementation of someone's belief and asking them to justify their belief in the face of those consequences?

He shouldn`t have to justify it - but he did - the life of a developing child is sacrosanct.

There are no implications - they are acting as if he would `make` someone keep a child if they had been raped - of course he wouldn`t - he`s not in a position to do so and if it was one of his own daughters, there`s no way he would make her - or his wife. It`s just his opinion which he does not place on anyone else. I`m sure if one of his daughters or his wife was raped, he would let them decide. Anyway his wife probably believes the same.

Châtelaine wrote:It's a very old-fashioned Catholic view. I was 10, when Maman was pregnant with her fourth child and I was very worried about her, as recently a pregnant neighbour had died. She'd been in labour and the midwife took her to hospital, as there were complications. A Catholic hospital that is. So they choose to save the baby and let her die. With as result a widowed husband, father of 6 now :-(

That is terrible - it used to happen - not these days because they can probably save both, but I`m sure if JRM was in that position he would opt to keep the wife !! I would hope anyway. What a terrible decision to have to make.

I am not Catholic. I am not Tory. But I do respect JRM.

I'm trying to think which king of England it was (centuries ago of course) who was asked "do we save your wife or the child?".

So it was a prevalent attitude.

Thank goodness, as Mimi says, it's not likely to happen these days.

Mimi wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Mimi wrote:I hate the way the press, particularly that Welsh git try to manoeuvre him into saying something extreme like "So you would make her have the child" - of course he wouldn`t you dick - he lives in the UK where it is against the law to "make" someone have a child.

That's semantics. The point that I'm sure was being made was, if, as Rees-Mogg believes should be the case, abortion wasn't an option, then there is no alternative for a woman that is pregnant following a rape than to have the child. Believing that the alternative should be prevented is to believe that the victim should be made to have the child.

What is wrong with exploring the obvious implication of the implementation of someone's belief and asking them to justify their belief in the face of those consequences?

He shouldn`t have to justify it - but he did - the life of a developing child is sacrosanct.

There are no implications - they are acting as if he would `make` someone keep a child if they had been raped - of course he wouldn`t - he`s not in a position to do so and if it was one of his own daughters, there`s no way he would make her - or his wife.  It`s just his opinion which he does not place on anyone else.  I`m sure if one of his daughters or his wife was raped, he would let them decide.  Anyway his wife probably believes the same.

If he becomes Prime Minister, then of course he's in a position to prevent abortions by making them illegal again! There are plenty of others, mostly men, who would agree with him

But he wouldn`t would he because he is representing his constituents of North Devon, not himself. Even if other people agree with him, he wouldn`t or couldn`t do anything about it because he respects the UK law.
It is his PERSONAL belief, that`s all.

I`m sure many MPs have PERSONAL beliefs about all sorts but they wouldn`t or couldn`t do anything about it. I think that welsh git was wrong to push him on such a personal matter.  JRM is a decent MP .... and that`s saying something these days.

You can't possibly be that naive. Of course he can do something about his beliefs just like all MPs can - they can vote on whether to accept laws, like gay marriage, or, as in the case of Rees-Mogg, not. Do you really think that, when gay marriage was making its way through the commons that Rees-Mogg sat down and thought "I'm fundamentally opposed to gay marriage because of my religious beliefs but I'm not going to let that influence the way I vote" before voting against it? Or did he think "Here's an opportunity to put my faith and beliefs into practice"?

We`re talking about the sanctity of life, not whether two homosexuals can marry - not really comparable Andy.

Gosh, isn`t he allowed to feel the way he does about a newly conceived life. It`s not a crime you know.

There are hundreds of MPs all voting weekly on bills, all with varying views on various topics, not all aligned with their constituents either. Surely you`re not expecting them all to vote how you want them to vote. They vote according to their conscience. All those bills are discussed in Parliament well before a vote. In the case of a rape he would have been well outnumbered anyway, which he would have expected and respected.

He has held the seat for North Devon for a long time and I should think, by now, his constituents realise he is a strict catholic and still vote for him.

I really don`t see what the big deal is - he believes in the sanctity of life - HE IS ALLOWED.

The way that Piers Morgan and that journalist were going on in such a bigoted way, anyone would think they wanted him hung drawn and quartered.

I'm not suggesting an equivalence between abortion and gay marriage. I was giving you an example of how he can - and did - do something about his  views. You seem to accept that point now but seek to lessen it by saying that it doesn't matter because he'd be outvoted. That's irrelevant. He is of course entitled to his views but I think it dangerous for a man with such cruel views (that he would make women pregnant through rape carry the child to full term regardless of the physical, psychological and emotional damage) to be in a position where he can potentially do something about those views. I'm beginning to think your only problem with him being challenged about his views on abortion is because you agree with him.  

Perhaps you also agree with him when he said that people educated in state schools are as thick as potted plants and that Doreen Laurence, mother of the murdered Steven Laurence, should be "repatriated" (https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/09/06/jacob-rees-mogg-calls-people-who-went-to-state-school-potted-plants/)

I'm trying to find direct quotes.

He didn't make the repatriation quote himself.

From the link: Rees-Mogg also once spoke at a dinner to a far-right group which thinks Baroness Doreen Lawrence should be ‘repatriated’.

P.S. Okay, he did appear to say "potted plants"! There are dimwits from all walks of life, no matter where they were educated.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/state-school-pupils-are-potted-plants-says-tory-418767.html

P.P.S. He regrets attending the meeting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10230962/Jacob-Rees-Moggs-shock-at-dinner-with-group-that-want-to-repatriate-black-Britons.html

AndyB wrote:I'm not suggesting an equivalence between abortion and gay marriage. I was giving you an example of how he can - and did - do something about his  views. You seem to accept that point now but seek to lessen it by saying that it doesn't matter because he'd be outvoted. That's irrelevant. He is of course entitled to his views but I think it dangerous for a man with such cruel views (that he would make women pregnant through rape carry the child to full term regardless of the physical, psychological and emotional damage) to be in a position where he can potentially do something about those views. I'm beginning to think your only problem with him being challenged about his views on abortion is because you agree with him.  

Perhaps you also agree with him when he said that people educated in state schools are as thick as potted plants and that Doreen Laurence, mother of the murdered Steven Laurence, should be "repatriated" (https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/09/06/jacob-rees-mogg-calls-people-who-went-to-state-school-potted-plants/)

Andy (see bolded) you are doing what the pondlife press do and twisting his words to cause a sensation - he never said such a thing as he would make a pregnant woman via rape carry the child to full term regardless of the pp&e damage.  Of course he flippin` wouldn`t.  In his own words "I believe life begins at the moment of conception etc etc .... "


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41176953
Watch the video - you can see Piers Morgan trying to corner him into saying something he wouldn`t do just to get a sensational headline.  Do you honestly think JRM would MAKE a woman have a baby she didn`t want?  The truth is he would be unhappy about it as it goes against his beliefs, but we are all unhappy about lots of things but that`s life and a flippin` good job we don`t all think the same or else we would be robots.

And as for you assumption that I have the same beliefs as him - you`re wrong - I`m ok with abortion up to a certain gestation.

Jacob Rees Mogg`s actual words about potted plants are :-

""We don't want to make it harder for intellectually able people to be Tory party candidates. The Tory party, when it's elected, has to be able to form a government and it's not going to be able to form a government if it has potted plants as candidates simply to make up quotas."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/state-school-pupils-are-potted-plants-says-tory-418767.html

State school pupils are often put in the category of potted plants because they are restrained mentally, told what to think, what to read etc. and not think for themselves, hence they are they end up being replicas of the government education system - they end up thinking what the government wants them to think.  JRM has never referred to state school pupils as thick - it is the press manipulating again.  But he`s right about state school pupils, unless of course they happen to get a teacher who encourages thinking outside the box/pot.

He is also right about having too high a proportion of ethnic minorities as representatives when 95% of UK people are white nationals.

No child asks to be born, it's not their fault, yet they're the ones that suffer IMO.

Thanks for the link.

It doesn`t say anything about him MAKING other people follow his beliefs. Not like a certain person we know.

Not such a believer is he Mimi..........

Typical of the rags to twist things so he looks bad.

At least, if you read the whole thing, you find out he`s in a partnership that invests for clients, and the drug is not sold as an abortion pill. Talk about twisting and cornering him into a minute detail. You could probably do that with all investments if you dug deeper enough. Anyway, as he said, his firm cannot impose his religious beliefs on every company his partnership invests in.

Mimi - you won't be putting your name to this petition; me neither!

https://www.change.org/p/patrick-mcloughlin-mp-parliament-uk-constituency-jacob-rees-mogg-mp-resign-over-your-offensive-comments/nftexp/ex5/v4/681025544?recruiter=681025544&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page.share_redirect-control&utm_term=triggered&utm_content=ex5%3Av4