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

"X is entitled to their opinion" is honestly one of the most tedious things a person can say in an argument. Talk about stating the fucking obvious. What does that ever add to the discussion?

Why is he not entitled to his opinion?

It's not like he's standing outside abortion clinics stopping people from going in.

Margaret - voting record. Just those two words: voting record.

And in addition to that: has advocated a "big, open and comprehensive offer" to UKIP, has argued for the abolition of environmental protection laws, and has been a guest speaker at the Traditional Britain group which advocates the repatriation of blacks.

This adds up to rather more than traditional Catholic views.

"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."

Do you seriously believe that the views of a member of parliament, within our representative democracy are utterly irrelevant? I think an MP's personal views are less relevant than their voting record (and JRM's is pretty shitty) and government policy, but it ludicrous to suggest that they are completely irrelevant.

I consider the idea that we shouldn't concern ourselves with the opinions of those in power because "the majority of the country thinks x, y, or z" to be bizarrely complacent.

Rubies, he has made it quite clear that those opinions inform his politics. It follows that if these are not the politics we want, then we should not vote for him. And if they are not the politics the Conservative Party want to be associated with, then they should not pick him as their candidate.

Now a successful cancer cell has both a full compliment of genetic material and the ability to grow and adapt to its surroundings
And some types can grow hair, bone, teeth, visceral organ tissue, endocrine organ tissue, blood....

Save The Teratomas indeed.

The guy is, IMO, a turbocunt (thanks to the poster for this word!). There are some single opinions that I am completely happy to use to write off any other more moderate aspects of someone's personality. I would rather drink piss than drink a pint with him.

But my reading of the article is that 1. It is his personal view and 2. There is no chance that the law will change (nor do I see that he would pursue a law change, other than in his voting record). I admire his honesty (he knows it's controversial and unlikely to endear many), if not what he's being honest about. I think we could do with more of it in politics, to understand more who these people are and how that might affect our votes for them.

SqhishySquirmy
If he did have the power to impose restrictions based on his own faith upon all women, would he? I think he would
------------------
He added that the democratic majority were equally entitled to laws that did not follow the Catholic Church's teaching.
So, in answer, No he wouldn’t. ‘So the headline should read ‘A man who does not personally believe in abortion would not impose his views on others’.
Yeah, really truly scary stuff and you are right to stone him to death for holding a moral viewpoint at deviance from the majority……
Total non story.

But yeah, it's completely impossible that a controversial, fringe member of a political party whose views are considered extreme by the majority of his colleagues could ever be elected as party leader. That could never, ever happen so we should all just relax and stop having an opinion on what that nice owlish man off HIGNFY might publicly say. What he says in public on morning TV is just his private opinion and we have no right to question it.

He has 6 children but happily proclaimed in an interview that he has never changed a nappy.

I bet his wife hasnt either. Nannies all the way.

Unfortunately, MaidOfStarts, I don't think Jacob Rees-Moggs is about honesty. I think he has made a very deliberate calculation (and one that has proved true before in politics) that if you are sufficiently outree and eccentric in your general demeanour and throw in a few shockers at regular intervals, people will be so charmed by your honesty and your courage to be controversial that they won't stop to look to closely at what you actually do. If you behave differently to the politicians around you, and have been blessed with sufficient charm, it is not difficult to convince people that you should be judged by different rules to other politicians. Which is generally bad news for the electorate.

Silly little twerp!

Obviously a woman scared him at an impressionable age probably nanny or matron.

And not all abortions are heartbreaking actually quite a good deal are cool decisions made by adults who are fully entitled to have bodily autonomy and feel huge relief after an abortion.

Nasty misogynistic vile idiot.

Appllo But if the democratic majority were to democratically elect a man who publicly promotes such views, then could JRM not argue that there was a case for considering such laws? Obviously could never happen while the majority of MPs were opposed to such laws, I don't think anyone is suggesting anything different.

And who exactly is stoning whom to death? What have I missed? Or is that an example of hyperbole and misrepresentation?

Silly little twerp!

Obviously a woman scared him at an impressionable age probably nanny or matron.

And not all abortions are heartbreaking actually quite a good deal are cool decisions made by adults who are fully entitled to have bodily autonomy and feel huge relief after an abortion.

Nasty misogynistic vile idiot.

cory I agree that assuming that a controversial politician is "at least being honest" is unwise. It could be that the opinions he publicly admits to are the ones he consider the most publically acceptable. It does not mean that he doesn't hold even more extreme opinions in provate.

Can someone actually explain what 'he is entitled to his opinion' means?

Is it, he can think that? Because if so then yes! We can't exactly stop him...and likely he can't stop himself either...

Does it means he is allowed to announce it in public? Because this is borderline for me. So YES in general because of free speech. But also NO - if it encourages hate crimes.

I personally find picketing abortion clinics a misogynistic hate crime, but I would accept that many people wouldn't agree.

So yes, JRM probably is entitled to speak his views even in the public arena that his position affords him.

Or is it supposed to mean he has a valid opinion? If so then no, he absolutely isn't entitled to it.

Also, squishy, once you have established your reputation for endearing eccentricity, you can actually get away with saying and doing pretty hair-raising things because "it's only old So-and-so being his usual controversial self". You can say things quite openly and people just won't hear them.

His views are hardly controversial though are they - billions of religious people across the world would agree with him. ( & fair few non religious people too )

I agree with your first interpretation, Morphene - that people are free to hold any opinion, and are free to use thier public position to express their opinions (except in very specific, narrow scenarios where doing so would be a hate crime).

However, unlike others on this thread I do not believe that the right to hold/express an opinion is a right to not be judged or criticised for that opinion. A public figure publicly expressing a private opinion in public is our bloody business! And there is nothing "totalitarian" about calling someone a twat for saying something twattish.

Well they've stirred up a lot of debate today so I would say that they're controversial in the UK. Wouldn't you?

Billions agree and billions disagree with him surfer. That's why his views are controversial.

I suspect that his views on abortion might actually limit his appeal among what is supposed to be his "base" (the conservative right).

I mean, this is not America; the British right wing is not particularly religious and is mostly not especially fussed about abortion.

An anti abortion stance will probably do him some damage among the right by a) emphasizing that he is a Catholic and b) bringing up the awkward question of welfare benefits (something that barely exists in the States). We have a 3-child cap on child benefit, which is officially being justified by "well, have an abortion if you have an oops pregnancy, then!" So how do you combine that with an anti-abortion stance? Tricky politics to pull off.

He is dangerous. He is telling us who is is and who he is is dangerous. He helps push the tone ever rightwards and that's what his role is. There will now be newspaper articles, radio phone ins, opinion pieces, Social media rantings to keep these odious views as a top news item to spread poison.

He has created a 'debate'. There will be a loud minority including the usual suspects (Hopkins et al) who will be given airtime disproportionate to their numbers who support his views and will shout loudly against 'PC agendas ', 'Feminazi's, 'liberal agendas'. As they will be noisy and appear larger in numbers than they are, some of the hard of thinking will begin to come around to their way of thinking as they will believe these far right views are what the 'silent' majority believe. Many others who secretly hold these views will feel emboldened to openly voice them.

The discourse moves ever rightwards and when you challenge these abhorrent views, you are told you are the fascist.

JRM's comments will barely cause him any harm. Boris Johnson publicly spouted homophobic and racist comments and he was twice voted mayor of London and almost became PM simply because there are huge numbers of people with inferiority complexes who love to bow and scrape in front of 'loveable' posh boys.

I mean, this is not America; the British right wing is not particularly religious and is mostly not especially fussed about abortion.

Yeah. Many Conservatives are pretty socially liberal. They're not going to want a v devout Catholic as their leader. Will make them even more unappealing to floating voters.

I dont think its a leap to think he'd try and outlaw abortion. He is telling us he believes a fetus is a living child from the moment of conception. He is telling us his God cares deeply about this issue. And he's telling us that his religious convictions are important to him.

Surely people go into politics to fight for the things they value & believe are morally right? I can respect some Tory politicians because while I might find some of their views repulsive I believe they are acting in accordance with their own believes.

He himself differentiates between issues like gay marriage (choices people make for themselves) and his perception of abortion (something being done to what he believes is a vulnerable new life). Yet he is not going to use his platform to fight for them? He is either lying or he lacks the integrity to stand up for his (admittedly repugnant) principles.

"Today 12:56 WhoresDoeuvres

"X is entitled to their opinion" is honestly one of the most tedious things a person can say in an argument. Talk about stating the fucking obvious. What does that ever add to the discussion?"

While I'd normally agree with you (especially on Facebook when someone posts a disagreeing viewpoint and the original poster replied with 'I'm entitled to my opinion' (well, obviously)) it is relevant here. People are debating whether or not as a man he is entitled to hold an opinion on abortion, so saying that he is is a valid relevant response. It's not relevant when the argument is unrelated to freedom of speech, who is allowed to have an opinion and so forth.