Turkish Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 Great to see a politician stand by his beliefs and not play to the crowd to get votes. A principled man who defends his view passionately. He has all the hallmarks of a great leader for this nation and would certainly get the Muslim vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 And he owns a top hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 He's in danger of replacing Boris as my favourite politician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 He's in danger of replacing Boris as my favourite politician 0/10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 0/10.Come on. Gotta be worth at least a half? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 Come on. Gotta be worth at least a half? A wit, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 A wit, yes.10/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 Would be great as Tory leader. Corbo would absolutely d1ck him at the next GE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 Too many plums and duffers confuse affectation for eccentricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 Impeccable manners, and I'm happy with him voicing his opinion on abortion, even though I disagree with it (I agree with the current law - pro-choice up to 24 weeks). I wouldn't vote for him anyway because his background in high society and business involvement with large multinational companies (oil, tobacco, mining) make him the epitome of what it is to be Tory and not the sort of bloke set up to represent the masses. This is good though... www.youtube.com/watch?v=szGxq3pvJPQ&t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 Impeccable manners, and I'm happy with him voicing his opinion on abortion, even though I disagree with it (I agree with the current law - pro-choice up to 24 weeks). The Rochdale Herald printed the headline "The argument for abortion argues against abortion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 (edited) The Rochdale Herald printed the headline "The argument for abortion argues against abortion". He’s like the offspring of some bestial fling between Downton Abbey and the Adams Family. Edited 6 September, 2017 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 6 September, 2017 Share Posted 6 September, 2017 He’s like the offspring of some bestial fling between Downton Abbey and the Adams Family. It's times like these that we really need a "like" button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Is this a psychadelic keyboard-playing distant cousin of the Tory politician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Too many plums and duffers confuse affectation for eccentricity. or bigotory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 He agrees that a woman raped by her father should have to keep the baby even if she didn't want to. He's a bit of a weirdo to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Personally I would be very happy if he became the next Tory leader. As if May isn't already doing a good enough job of convincing people how hopelessly out of touch with reality they are, this guy would take it to a whole new level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Personally I would be very happy if he became the next Tory leader. As if May isn't already doing a good enough job of convincing people how hopelessly out of touch with reality they are, this guy would take it to a whole new level. They're all out of touch. Yesterday you had Corbin on Twitter saying that they'd ban betting companies sponsoring football teams. FFS! As if that's the most important thing, it's probably not even the 100th most important thing to tackle. They're c*cks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 I doubt homophobic views have anything to do with his catholic faith, more likely to do with losing 'soggy biscuit' at boarding school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashnats Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 He agrees that a woman raped by her father should have to keep the baby even if she didn't want to. He's a bit of a weirdo to be honest. no - he inferred he was following his catholicism - in which case it is perfectly ok (recommended in fact) to get rid of the baby after birth, via an orphanage where it can be subjected to whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 it would be a bit weird for someone who believes life is sacred and life begins at conception to agree with abortion conditional on the circumstances of conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 it would be a bit weird for someone who believes life is sacred and life begins at conception to agree with abortion conditional on the circumstances of conception. It wouldn't really be weird though would it. It would just mean that person had some sort of understanding of the circumstances and sympathy for the person involved. And a realisation that their beliefs are based on a centuries old work of fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 September, 2017 Author Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Personally I would be very happy if he became the next Tory leader. As if May isn't already doing a good enough job of convincing people how hopelessly out of touch with reality they are, this guy would take it to a whole new level. Because IRA Jezza, who attended a private grammar school and doesn't consider his £138k a year salary makes him wealthy has his finger on the pulse of the realities of the average man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 (edited) He agrees that a woman raped by her father should have to keep the baby even if she didn't want to. He's a bit of a weirdo to be honest. He holds a religious belief that human life is sacrosanct and looks beyond the story-book banality of the infantile euphemism, "keep the baby". He sees it as choosing to kill a human. To him, it's not "keep the baby" or "not keep the baby" (like it's a ****ing handbag or something) but rather "murder the baby" or "not murder the baby". The religious belief is, IMO, potty but the careful consideration of the process of causing death to a human is clearly worthy of thought and debate. By issuing such a perfunctory dismissal predicated on the basis that abortion is some sort of right you just make yourself look unthinking and bigoted. Edited 7 September, 2017 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 By issuing such a perfunctory dismissal predicated on the basis that abortion is some sort of right you just make yourself look unthinking and bigoted. But it is 'some sort of right'. It's called a woman's right to choose, and it's enshrined in the UK by the 1967 Abortion Act and in the US by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade judgment. Perhaps in the circumstances, and given Mogg's personal mission to over-populate the world, he should be advised to go f u c k himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 (edited) It's down to when you believe human life to start, conception or 24 weeks. If you believe that it's conception then clearly terminating a pregnancy at 2,3,4 weeks is killing a human life. The law and mainstream opinion clearly believes that there is a point where an unborn baby is a human life, otherwise we would allow termination up to the day of birth. Personally I'm inclined to agree with him, we keep people in a vegetive state alive, but allow a 23 week old foetus to be killed. However on a practical level I support a women's right to choose, because of the harm done if she doesn't (backstreet abortions, suicides, unwanted babies etc). We've let the genie out of the bottle, no putting it back in. So his abortion beliefs are consistent & thought through, whether you agree with them or not. It's certainly more refreshing for him to state these rather than do a Farron fudge. He won't become leader, he's not up to it and hasn't got the required skills. Not that this stopped Corbyn, however, the Tory MP's aren't as ****ing stupid at Labour ones. They have rules in place to stop this, but unlike labour won't circumnavigate them,to allow different arguments to be heard. The party faithful are head bangers, so the 2 candidates presented to them will both be normal establishment figures. How on earth can you send a candidate to the membership that hasn't the support of enough MP's and one that MP's have no confidence in? It just leads to chaos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited 7 September, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 But it is 'some sort of right'. It's called a woman's right to choose, and it's enshrined in the UK by the 1967 Abortion Act and in the US by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade judgment. Perhaps in the circumstances, and given Mogg's personal mission to over-populate the world, he should be advised to go f u c k himself. So if you disagree with a law, you have to go f u c k yourself? Good job the older generation fought for what they believed in, rather than f u c k ed themselves, otherwise we wouldn't have legal abortions Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 But it is 'some sort of right'. It's called a woman's right to choose, and it's enshrined in the UK by the 1967 Abortion Act and in the US by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade judgment. Perhaps in the circumstances, and given Mogg's personal mission to over-populate the world, he should be advised to go f u c k himself. Well, it's a right granted by parliament that, as far as I understand, he has no particular plan to campaign against and he is willing to respect, albeit he wouldn't personally vote for it. I should have been clearer but my point is that it's not an inalienable right - it's subject to a pretty arbitrary cut-off in the pregnancy for example. I don't agree with him, for what it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 But it is 'some sort of right'. It's called a woman's right to choose, and it's enshrined in the UK by the 1967 Abortion Act and in the US by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade judgment. Perhaps in the circumstances, and given Mogg's personal mission to over-populate the world, he should be advised to go f u c k himself. Someone didn't listen to the interview properly. The highlighted bit in bold was exactly the point that Jacob Rees-Moog made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 September, 2017 Author Share Posted 7 September, 2017 But it is 'some sort of right'. It's called a woman's right to choose, and it's enshrined in the UK by the 1967 Abortion Act and in the US by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade judgment. Perhaps in the circumstances, and given Mogg's personal mission to over-populate the world, he should be advised to go f u c k himself. What about the child's right to life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Someone didn't listen to the interview properly. Why listen to the interview properly when there are social media knee jerk reactions to go by instead...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 What about the child's right to life? That's trumped by the parents right to carry on drinking, smoking, gambling and sh*gging around unfettered by the financial burden of a bawling ungrateful sprog. Do keep up, turks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 What about the child's right to life? It's not a child, it's an embryo/foetus. It has the potential to become a child, as did the teenagers sperm spread across a copy of sports illustrated. As it is incapable of conscious though and therefore unaware of its surroundings, to me it is no less humane than squashing a mosquito. What you're arguing is that something with the potential to become life has the right to life, which I personally disagree with. Mogg is out of touch, even for a Tory, and if he became leader it would be a farce on par with Boris or Trump. I don't want to have to chose between a Labour leader from the 1960s and a Tory leader from the 1860s at the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 (edited) It's not a child, it's an embryo/foetus. It has the potential to become a child, as did the teenagers sperm spread across a copy of sports illustrated. As it is incapable of conscious though and therefore unaware of its surroundings, to me it is no less humane than squashing a mosquito. What you're arguing is that something with the potential to become life has the right to life, which I personally disagree with. Mogg is out of touch, even for a Tory, and if he became leader it would be a farce on par with Boris or Trump. I don't want to have to chose between a Labour leader from the 1960s and a Tory leader from the 1860s at the next election. You could probably say that about a one month old, TBF. All it does is wail and ****. Never made a worthwhile contribution to anything. Stupid little mosquito. In fact, a mosquito is at least ostensibly busy and can look after itself. They're both parasites but one is at least self-dependent. Does some magic cognitive leap occur when it gets its head squeezed out of its mother's vulva? Edited 7 September, 2017 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 You could probably say that about a one month old, TBF. All it does is wail and ****. Never made a worthwhile contribution to anything. Stupid little mosquito. In fact, a mosquito is at least ostensibly busy and can look after itself. They're both parasites but one is at least self-dependent. Does some magic cognitive leap occur when it gets its head squeezed out of its mother's vulva?Or the second a 167 day old foetus turns into a 168 day old foetus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 If some Muslim cleric had spouted the sh_ite that JRM has the not so closet racists on here would have been up in arms. Some tory toff cu_nt says it and they'll defend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Or the second a 167 day old foetus turns into a 168 day old foetus... Why is the drink driving limit 35mg? So a man with 35 in his blood is perfectly safe whereas a man with 36 is an intoxicated danger to the public. What about people doing 71 on the motorways? Are they reckless drivers? Basically it's an arbitrary line in the sand we have drawn across the development of a foetus. A balance between allowing the parent enough time do decide whether the baby is healthy, whether or not it is ethical to keep it and the point where a foetus becomes a human. You could probably say that about a one month old, TBF. All it does is wail and ****. Never made a worthwhile contribution to anything. Stupid little mosquito. In fact, a mosquito is at least ostensibly busy and can look after itself. They're both parasites but one is at least self-dependent. Does some magic cognitive leap occur when it gets its head squeezed out of its mother's vulva? It is a human, capable of conscious thought, emotion, interaction with its surroundings and attachment to other humans. A foetus isn't. That's my criteria. It's not 'right' just my view on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 It wouldn't really be weird though would it. It would just mean that person had some sort of understanding of the circumstances and sympathy for the person involved. And a realisation that their beliefs are based on a centuries old work of fiction. Two arguments you can have are that you can argue whether the matter is rape and incest or you can argue whether the organism constitutes life. These arguments are independent of each other. If it is presumed there is life and life is considered sacrosanct, the circumstance or method of conception is irrelevant. If it is presumed there is no life, feel free to abort it no matter what the circumstance. The third argument to be had is whether life is sacred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Two arguments you can have are that you can argue whether the matter is rape and incest or you can argue whether the organism constitutes life. These arguments are independent of each other. If it is presumed there is life and life is considered sacrosanct, the circumstance or method of conception is irrelevant. If it is presumed there is no life, feel free to abort it no matter what the circumstance. The third argument to be had is whether life is sacred. I get the arguments, but you said it would be 'weird' for someone to consider abortion in the event of rape because of their religious beliefs. If your wife or daughter got raped and she was catholic you may or may not agree with her having it aborted but it would be a stretch for anyone to say choosing abortion would be 'weird'. Going through rape must be hard enough let alone dealing with the emotion and pain of pregnancy and childbirth afterwards. IMO only a heartless **** would deny the victim that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 If some Muslim cleric had spouted the sh_ite that JRM has the not so closet racists on here would have been up in arms. Some tory toff cu_nt says it and they'll defend him.It could also be suggested that the reverse is also true. i.e. some of those that are criticising a "Tory toff" probably wouldn't be as outspoken had it been a Muslim cleric spouting the same "sh_ite" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Why is the drink driving limit 35mg? So a man with 35 in his blood is perfectly safe whereas a man with 36 is an intoxicated danger to the public. What about people doing 71 on the motorways? Are they reckless drivers? Basically it's an arbitrary line in the sand I think we're in agreement. Yes, both sides of the argument use an arbitrary line in the sand for the basis of their opinion. A Catholic draws said line at the point of conception whereas others draw the line at 167 days after conception. As you say, neither of these arbitrary lines are "right" or "wrong", they're just different opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 As I understand it, 24 weeks is so that it gives the medical profession time to rule out serious birth abnormalities and give the parents the choice of whether to continue. So in that sense it isn't arbitrary and I imagine, in the future, if medicine was able to identify these abnormalities sooner there would be a case for bringing the amount of weeks forward which I'm sure everyone would approve of. Apparently the percentage of pregnancies aborted even near that time is very, very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 It could also be suggested that the reverse is also true. i.e. some of those that are criticising a "Tory toff" probably wouldn't be as outspoken had it been a Muslim cleric spouting the same "sh_ite" Certainly would if he was being touted around as a future PM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 I get the arguments, but you said it would be 'weird' for someone to consider abortion in the event of rape because of their religious beliefs. If your wife or daughter got raped and she was catholic you may or may not agree with her having it aborted but it would be a stretch for anyone to say choosing abortion would be 'weird'. Going through rape must be hard enough let alone dealing with the emotion and pain of pregnancy and childbirth afterwards. IMO only a heartless **** would deny the victim that right.There's a huge difference between denying her the right and believing it shouldn't be aborted because you believe it is already a life and has a right to exist. The latter in no way prevents someone from having an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 I can’t stand Rees-Mogg but when they wheel out Polly Toynbee on Newsnight I actually warm to him a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 I can’t stand Rees-Mogg but when they wheel out Polly Toynbee on Newsnight I actually warm to him a little. Wonder what Europhile Polly makes of Spain,Ireland's & Malta's abortion laws, Malta's is basically JRM's position Can't recall her mentioning it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 Wonder what Europhile Polly makes of Spain,Ireland's & Malta's abortion laws, Malta's is basically JRM's position Can't recall her mentioning it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Are they EU law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 But it is 'some sort of right'. It's called a woman's right to choose, and it's enshrined in the UK by the 1967 Abortion Act and in the US by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade judgment. Perhaps in the circumstances, and given Mogg's personal mission to over-populate the world, he should be advised to go f u c k himself. When did he give you any such indication? He simply stated that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 7 September, 2017 Share Posted 7 September, 2017 It's not a child, it's an embryo/foetus. It has the potential to become a child, as did the teenagers sperm spread across a copy of sports illustrated. As it is incapable of conscious though and therefore unaware of its surroundings, to me it is no less humane than squashing a mosquito. What you're arguing is that something with the potential to become life has the right to life, which I personally disagree with. Mogg is out of touch, even for a Tory, and if he became leader it would be a farce on par with Boris or Trump. I don't want to have to chose between a Labour leader from the 1960s and a Tory leader from the 1860s at the next election. Offensive on every level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 8 September, 2017 Share Posted 8 September, 2017 When did he give you any such indication? He simply stated that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. I think he's referring to the fact he has six children, not that it has any relevance to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now