Dear Jacob Rees Mog...

[MoiraRosesMeltdown]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172426

.....You may think that abortion is "morally indefensible", and that
"Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception", even in cases or rape or incest.

You can have an opinion on this when you have a uterus, have been raped or have been abused yourself. You can never know why individual women make this heartbreaking decision. You are supposed to represent the public. Keep your insulting, patronising opinions to yourself.

Yours sincerely,
Women of the world

I have more respect for JRM's assertion that he opposes all abortion, than I do the mealy mouthed contortions of those who agree with abortion only if the woman has ticked the requisite value judgement boxes & has been decreed as worthy enough to have one (incest, rape etc).

No uterus; no opinion

I don't have to agree with him, respect his opinion or respect the person, but I have no problem at all with him holding a different opinion to me.

Noone on this thread is trying to stop R-M from holding any old opinions he likes!!! But if he tries to promulgate certain opinions in his political capacity (as he does) and votes in accordance (as he has), then that is directly relevant to whether the British electorate should accept him as their Prime Minister.

I have no problem with Trump holding any bizarre opinions either. I would not have wanted to curtail his free speech as long as he remained in an individual capacity. But the fact that he is voicing his opinions as POTUS, and letting them shape his policies, is causing the world all sorts of trouble.

Not saying R-M would have anything like the same catastrophic effect.
But his voting record shows that we cannot trust him on matters like gay rights: he is completely prepared to vote in accordance with his beliefs. So I don't see why we should trust him on his other, equally strong, beliefs, just on his say-so.

I find it far more abhorrent & sinister that people feel it is acceptable to prescribe the opinions & discourse of others tbh.

As above. Politics is all about people stating (honestly or dishonestly) what their political views are so that people can then make their minds up about whether they want to be represented by this particular person. Saying "no, we shouldn't make him PM" is not prescribing his opinions or discourse; it is exercising our own right to free speech. Many Conservatives want to see a different leader of their party. They are allowed to say so, without being accused of interfering with free speech.

It's a rare thing for a politician to be honest rather than duplicitous too, so that's quite a refreshing change.

I think it is very naïve to believe that somebody is honest just because they voice a few unpopular beliefs. That is a very old politician's trick; it's been in use since Antiquity.

Faith I absolutely agree with you. I cannot bear those who want to make an exception for the product of rape- in other words if you had consensual sex then you can deal with the consequences but if you're raped then the "baby" is somehow less valuable.

I do not like JRM. Those are not views I hold. I am not religious.

However, I do think there is a bit of Christianity bashing going on here. If Sadiq Khan came out and made statements about his personal religious beliefs akin to these, would posters be calling him a thundercunt? Islam also teaches that homosexuality is wrong. If a Muslim politician expressed such views would there be the same reaction here?
(I am perfectly aware that those are not the views held by many people- Muslim, Christian, Jew whatever- who do not follow the teachings of their church "to the letter".)

I personally don't agree with him, but we are lucky enough to live in a free society and don't have 'thought police' and we are all allowed to have our own personal views. He was asked for his personal views, and he honestly gave them.

He is not seeking to change our society to a strict Roman Catholic one, this is yet another way the press can influence society and basically get rid of anyone they don't agree with. Tim Farron, who I definitely didn't agree with, was hounded and forced out because of his personal views.

Are we turning into a society that only allows certain views? I hope not.

I don't personally believe in ANY religion, I firmly believe every women has the right to make their own decisions as regards abortion, I believe everyone has the right to live in a free country, free of persecution of any kind, which also means the right to think what they want, follow any faith they want, so long as they don't try to force their opinions on others. In his interview he wasn't seeking to persuade anyone to follow or agree with him, he answered a question honestly. Just like Tim farron did, and he in the end, because of 'press pressure' felt he had to resign........a very sad sign of the times if people can't hold personal views. IMHO

He can hold what ridiculous views he wants but he has no right to try and influence laws to control my body my dds bodies or any other woman's bodies.

I so agree with you faith about those women worthy of abortion so 'good' girls who have been sullied by men, it's disgusting.

Until we have abortion on demand for all women at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason the woman sees fit then we are not free.

I don't know why people keep dragging Sadiq Khan into this debate. Why him, in particular? He's not, nor is he ever likely to be, a potential candidate for leader of the Conservative Party . Nor has he spoken publicly about abortion lately as far as I'm aware (prepared to be corrected on this matter). People citing him as someone who might hold certain views on the subject (does he?) are no doubt assuming that those disagreeing with the unspeakable Rees-Mogg are much fonder of the current Mayor of London. That is by no means a given but is in any case entirely irrelevant in this context.

Oh, and this:

he's a religious man - his God would see him through that crisis. That's generally what faith does

Yes, I dare say his faith will be very helpful as he watches someone else suffer. How helpful his faith would be to the wife or daughter who is actually going through the ordeal is another question.

People oh so predictably dragging Sadiq Khan into this should compare his voting record v JRM's. JRM's voting has absolutely been influenced by his conservative religious beliefs. Can the same be said about Khan?

I agree Annie. its weird.

"If Sadiq Khan came out and made statements about his personal religious beliefs akin to these, would posters be calling him a thundercunt? Islam also teaches that homosexuality is wrong. If a Muslim politician expressed such views would there be the same reaction here?"

But we don't need to speculate on what the world would be like of Sadiq Khan were to come out and say something completely different to anything he ever has said. All we need to do is look at his voting record. Yup, he consistently votes in favour of gay rights and women's autonomy over their bodies.

Rees Moggs otoh....

he's a religious man

I wonder which bit of the Bible he was following when he voted against fire alarms being required in rented accommodation. Or when he voted against protecting people from homelessness arising from financial problems caused by the bedroom tax. Or when he voted against protecting employees from abuse of zero hour contracts.

Now now, don't let's let evidence get in the way of a good argument, eh?

fiw I am a Christian and I would be seriously miffed if someone suggested that I had to hold the same views as Rees Moggs on any subject because "that is what my religion teaches".

My understanding is that my religion teaches charity and support of others and the need to walk a mile in somebody else's shoes. To be the best and kindest you can. I imagine that is Sadiq Khan's understanding of his religion too.

It's on all of us to criticise ALL religious or political views when they would harm others' health and safety and when believers would try to foist them more widely on others. (Whether the foisting affects other believers or non believers..)

Rees Mogg may not be campaigning to restrict or ban abortion right now, but I've not seen him rule that out and with more support and power why wouldn't he try? Seeing as how he and fellow MPs do actually have the power to change the law..

And already he is sending great encouragement to the many antichoice misogynists everywhere who are already actively seeking support for antichoice views and laws.

Important to just keep restating that many people aren't religious and don't want religiously based laws and that not all Catholics would agree with Rees Mogg ..
lots of Catholics support personal choice for all Catholics and everyone else, and those and other Catholics would at least want to privately practice personal choice on their own various issues.

It's very much Rees Mogg's own personal choice to be a dangerous shithead and to cloak that in his religious belief.

Abortion is personal choice. I do however have a friend who had two terminations, one at age 16 and another age 19. Unfortunately she had an early menopause at 36 just when she had met and married the love of her life do was unable to have children. I know she regrets her earlier abortions. Jacob Rees-Mogg is extremely privileged.

I see for some reason Sadiq Khan is being brought up again (again, why?)
I posted this earlier in the thread, but here is Khan's voting record. Now I don't agree with the way he voted on everything, but he almost always voted in favour of gay rights and gay marriage, and voted against reducing the time limit for abortions back in 2008. He seems to be more concerned with improving women's rights than many other politicians, although he is not perfect and I don't agree with every position he has taken.
www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11878/sadiq_khan/tooting/votes
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7411966.stm

If a leading Muslim politician (like Khan) was condemning abortion as "morally reprehensible" damn right they'd be uproar over it (more so than the reaction to JRM, I suspect).
But he isn't, so its a bit stupid to call people hypocrites based on what you imagine their reaction will be to a scenario which has never and probably will never happen.

If we are talking about Islam vs Christianity in general, I think there are sometimes issues of hypocrisy where homophobia at mosques etc. gets quietly ignored whereas the same beliefs would attract criticism should they be voiced by a church.

If we are talking specifically about Khan, however, I see no evidence that he is not pro gay rights, marriage equality and so on. He is far from perfect, but I don't think he has that particular problem.

"If we are talking about Islam vs Christianity in general..."

But we're not, are we Mary?
I don't get the constant references to Khan on this thread. Is it because he is the only Muslim politician that comes to mind? People are making enormous assumptions about the opinions he might hold (when voting records etc taking seconds to google) based purely on his faith. Its not only lazy, it could also be perceived as rather bigoted. Which is ironic, given that many seem to think that judging JRM for the things he actually says and does is "bigoted" "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". Yet apparently judging another politician as being homophobic and anti-abortion based on his faith alone, even against masses of evidence to the contrary is fine.

anniegetyourgun Odd this, devoutly religious people, those who adhere to biblical teachings and go to church, tend to marry similar spouses.

Whilst I personally find it distatsteful that anyone should be musing upon the hypothetical rape of a woman and her children simply because you dislike the husband/fathers views, you might like to remember Doreen Lawrence, another devoutly religiious person, forgave her sons killers.

Has Doreen Lawrence forgiven her sons killers?

I find it far more abhorrent & sinister that people feel it is acceptable to prescribe the opinions & discourse of others tbh.

Where is this happening?

Men like this can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. It's not about life, it's about controlling women, otherwise they'd be hand wringing over the level of male violence prevalent in society, and would be extremely anti war, but they're not.....

When men stop killing at the rate they do, I might take their opinion on abortion a little more seriously.

"I don't get the constant references to Khan on this thread. Is it because he is the only Muslim politician that comes to mind? People are making enormous assumptions about the opinions he might hold (when voting records etc taking seconds to google) based purely on his faith. Its not only lazy, it could also be perceived as rather bigoted. Which is ironic, given that many seem to think that judging JRM for the things he actually says and does is "bigoted" "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". Yet apparently judging another politician as being homophobic and anti-abortion based on his faith alone, even against masses of evidence to the contrary is fine."

This 100%.

Sadiq Kahn has consistently and in a high profile way spoken out in favour of rights and equality for women. He has consistently voted in favour of gay equality and rights. Unlike our Prime Minister.

Unlike JRM he is not currently an MP. London does not have its own abortion laws, so SK's personal views, what ever they may be, do not easily translate into power to enact them.

But as it happens, tne Muslim world is more liberal than many posters imagine on abortion. In Islamic law the foetus is not deemed to have a soul until 4 months (I think), which is curiously quite close to the old idea of 'quickening '. There is no Muslim majority country where abortion is absolutely banned and in Tunisia and Turkey (for example) abortion is available unconditionally on request.

Dangerous business, second guessing people's beliefs and, indeed, at risk of bigotry.

If you have any doubts about the sincerity of JRM's Christian morals, please compare the way he votes on issues that affect poor people, with his reaction to this grant of £7 million for Wentworth Woodhouse.

www.ft.com/content/d5efd3a0-b32f-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1

.