Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Dear Jacob Rees Mog...

265 replies

MoiraRosesMeltdown · 06/09/2017 11:16

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

OP posts:
corythatwas · 06/09/2017 12:23

Fair enough on the turbocunt, maybe you don't need to say that. But on a scale that includes consistently voting for reduction in spending on welfare benefits and benefits for the longterm sick and disabled, against support for those in need to pay council tax, for repealing the Human Rights Act, I'd say that's pretty mild. I would say that voting record betrays a pretty deep-seated hatred of humanity en masse.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 06/09/2017 12:23

Far better for his views to be known and people can make fully informed judgment on whether to vote for him as an MP or in any other role.

It has always bee quite well known his views. He isnt a new MP. Quite sure his constituents already know.

squishysquirmy · 06/09/2017 12:24

I also reflexively distrust anyone who doesn't change their opinion as they grow up. I have heard interviews with JRM as a child. His opinions on economic policy etc (they did not ask him about abortions, obviously) are exactly the same then as they are now. Imagine not modifying your opinions (especially on technical subjects) from when you are 11 years old! Either by some miraculous coincidence you were right about everything by 11, or you are impervious to the kind of evidence and life experience which would lead to a change of mind in most of us. Occam's razor suggests that in JRM's case the latter is true.

Circumlocutor · 06/09/2017 12:25

Why was he being interviewed as a child?

scatterolight · 06/09/2017 12:25

squishysquirmy: "I don't see much hatefulness on this thread? Some anger, maybe."

I've ignored all the ones that just called him an idiot or out of touch. Fairly restrained criticisms. But here are some of the other words used in this thread....

abhorrent
dangerous
reprehensible
horrific
sinister bastard
turbocunt
snake
cunt
vile
odious

This is not how you have a rational discussion about important issues. By all means disagree with him. By all means, if you're in his constituency, don't vote for him next time around. But this level of intemperate language is at best unhelpful, and at worst adds to the dreary poverty of our public discourse.

GerdaLovesLili · 06/09/2017 12:27

mmzz If your stats are correct I'm greatly relieved. I don't think that JRM is going to be a threat to the laws of the country as they stand if he is in such a tiny minority however at variance with my views his may be. He and his 19th century mores will son be extinct.

PlasticPatty · 06/09/2017 12:28

It has to be the woman's choice, no matter how much that hurts. He can have his opinion. In an ideal world, I'd agree with him. But this world is not a place of perfection.

And no man has the right to insist that a woman carry a baby to term, not for religion, politics, or because he thinks he is the father. Not your body, mate.

5rivers7hills · 06/09/2017 12:28

He is a dangerous, odious man.

squishysquirmy · 06/09/2017 12:28

"Actually he represents his constituency who keep voting him in."

True, but technically he is obliged to represent all his constituents, not just the ones who voted for him. And of course no matter how safe and cushy his seat is, there will be constituents who really, really suffer from attitudes held by powerful people like like him.

corythatwas · 06/09/2017 12:29

The nappy changing thing has been taken as misogyny by quite a few people who failed to take into account J. R-M.'s Bertie-Wooster-Lord-Grantham act. His point was not that his wife does any nappy changes either. The nanny does it. You know, them downstairs. The servants. They can be highly respected and do a great job in forming you (which apparently is his verdict on his own nanny), but they are not People Like Us. They are not the ones on whose behalf you run the country. They are the ones who enable you to do your work as a policy maker, not the ones policies are for

MargaretTwatyer · 06/09/2017 12:32

It was striking that my post upthread, on how we need to be able to hold different opinions without being abused for it

Exactly. Some people appear to be unable to realise that many people can seperate intellectual and religious views too. That they can (for example) personally believe their religions teaching that homosexuality is a sin, but be able to intellectually understand that this is a personal belief based on faith and not one which should be imposed on the rest of society.

It really is thick and simplistic to move from: He is a Catholic and believes life begins at conception to 'he wants to outlaw abortion'.

I really find it very frightening that certain sections of our society believe that anybody in power should hold a very prescribed and limited set of uniform 'acceptable' beliefs and has paroxysms that people may not share those beliefs even if they have no wish to impose them on others.

This intolerance of dissent really is frightening and seems like the first road to totalitarianism.

DreamingofSummer · 06/09/2017 12:33

Jacob Rees-Mogg is a Catholic. He stated Catholic doctrine which he accepts. Why is everyone surprised?

He's perfectly entitled to his views.

Others are perfectly entitled not to agree with them

squishysquirmy · 06/09/2017 12:34

scatter Take out the swearing (which is subjective in how serious it is), and I really see nothing wrong with that list. People haven't said he's dangerous because of the way he speaks. People haven't said he's sinister because of his haircut. We are basing our opinions on whether or not he is reprehensible/dangerous on the things he says, the things he does, the power he holds, and the power he may hold in the future.

The freedom to do so is really quite the opposite of "authoritarian", and I am surprised you not voltairing it on our behalf as well as JRM's.

Morphene · 06/09/2017 12:37

nah...not all views are things people are 'perfectly entitled too'.

There is evidence and facts to contend with.

The way you can tell that 'life starts at conception' is bollocks is the fact that around 30-50% of conceptions end in miscarriage (often undetected as they are so early). This means that a fertilized zygote has the potential for life...but it doesn't have life itself.

varvara · 06/09/2017 12:37

You don't speak for all women.

Morphene · 06/09/2017 12:38

ps. there is no way the tory party is mad enough to elect him PM. He himself is not mad enough to take on the job.

BorisTrumpsHair · 06/09/2017 12:39

This reply has been deleted

This post contains disablist language. Talk Guidelines.

DreamingofSummer · 06/09/2017 12:39

Margaret

I really find it very frightening that certain sections of our society believe that anybody in power should hold a very prescribed and limited set of uniform 'acceptable' beliefs and has paroxysms that people may not share those beliefs even if they have no wish to impose them on others.

This intolerance of dissent really is frightening and seems like the first road to totalitarianism

Exactly

Aridane · 06/09/2017 12:40

He's entitled to an opinion, notwithstanding his lack of a vagina / womb

scatterolight · 06/09/2017 12:42

Squishy - your argument has a logical fallacy. We do not live in a North Korean one man dictatorship. JRM's personal views, in the context of a democracy where the vast, vast majority of people are in favour of abortion, are utterly irrelevant.

His opinions are not dangerous, sinister nor reprehensible (how ludicrous to even have to argue this). This is all over the top unnecessary language which makes those using it look like fools.

DreamingofSummer · 06/09/2017 12:43

Morphene

So a "fact" is something you agree with? Everything else is fake news presumably.

"This means that a fertilized zygote has the potential for life...but it doesn't have life itself."

That's your opinion, JRM has a different opinion. There is no definitive truth here - it depends on your starting definition.

Elvesandtheshoomaker · 06/09/2017 12:45

JRM's views should not come as a surprise.

He was asked about his private views not on proposed policy. He said the law is not going to change.

Morphene · 06/09/2017 12:50

I'm not entitled to the view that the earth is flat, or that gravity doesn't exist. These aren't valid opinions, just because someone holds them. A fertlized zygote with insufficient chromosomes isn't alive - it doesn't meet the criteria for being alive.

Now a successful cancer cell has both a full compliment of genetic material and the ability to grow and adapt to its surroundings. It far closer to the definition of life than an average zygote.

I wonder why JRM isn't campaigning for this form of life to be preserved at all costs?

Wherearemymarbles · 06/09/2017 12:55

He is entitled to his opionion regardless of whether anyone else agrees to it.

Morphene · 06/09/2017 12:55

btw this thread highlights exactly why JRM will never be PM. You might recall the mess Tim Farron got in when hounded on how his personal views on gay marriage didn't tally with his party's line.

Its all very well saying that JRM can have a private view on a matter even though it doesn't tally with either public opinion or his party's stance, but in reality that conflict will prevent him from being able to lead the party or be PM (for more than 5 mins).

So I don't really care one way or the other what JRM thinks about abortion....but that doesn't mean his opinion is valid or equal to any other opinions either.