To think Jacob Rees-Mog is a scary prospect as PM

[Cantshedmymuffintop]

To think someone who opposes same sex marriage and is against pro choice, even after rape is being sited as next PM. Is this not scraping the barrel?!

Pro-forced birth. Not pro-life. Let's call it what it is; forcing women to be pregnant and give birth.

And girls, he would force a 10 year old to give birth, regardless of the damage to her body.

and corbyn would be good for prime minister in the 1900s but in the soviet union communism

Before the soviet union existed?

'BTW. If you're pro-life as opposed to pro-forced birth I assume you also feel that society should ensure that all children start on an equal footing in terms of education and healthcare, and that you also think the death penalty is wrong?' you would be right but im not what you mean by pro forced birth after you get pregnant you will give birth unless you take action to kill your child
by the way if abortion is a way of ensuring better lives for children why was life so miserable in the soviet union they had 5.5 million abortions and only 2 million births.
the same in america abortion was legalised and child poverty rose

The way the media went crazy about Tim Farron and gay marriage, it's hard to believe they'd accept JRM. But oh, isn't he charming and affable and delightfully posh.

'And girls, he would force a 10 year old to give birth, regardless of the damage to her body.' most 10 year olds cant get pregnant and they would have a ceserian and thats why there a law saying you cant have sex under 16 and yes your right i meant 1920s soviet union.

He thinks rape victims should be forced to have babies so the age of consent really doesn't come into it.

Anyone remember that kids TV program "the demon headmaster"?. There are likenesses....

'He thinks rape victims should be forced to have babies so the age of consent really doesn't come into it.' why should the child die because of the crime of the father. and i mentioned age because the poster i was replying to used the rare example of a 10 year old being pregnant and saying her age had greater risks to the mother although of course an abortion has risks to the mother aswell.

There are plenty of risks with illegal abortions but next to none with legal ones.

He is our answer to Mike Pence...terrifying.

He should join the Trump administration and keave us alone.

re are plenty of risks with illegal abortions but next to none with legal ones.
thats not what the nhs sayswww.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/risks/ the nhs says 10 percent of abortions end up with a medical condition or for these 4 cases www.cleveland19.com/story/25133698/woman-dies-after-being-rushed-to-hospital-following-an-abortion
www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2017/04/dead_womans_ultrasound_showed.html
www.vanguardngr.com/2017/04/mother-eight-dies-abortion-ogun/
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23401781

Compared to the hundreds of deaths every year in in the UK in pregnancy and during and following childbirth.

Abortion is extremely safe compared to pregnancy and childbirth.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. While it is the mother's body, it is her choice. As early as possible, as late as necessary.

you said theres next to no risks with abortion which youve now chnaged your mind and your now saying its the mothers body which is factually wrong they have different dna different sex different DNA ect the fetus is exactley where its meant to be. in their mothers womb but not part of her body its basic biology that so many people get wrong and think a fetus is part of the mothers body.

bluelion if you're going to wax lyrical about why the rights of a foetus trump the rights of a woman, could you at least use punctuation?

but not part of her body its basic biology that so many people get wrong and think a fetus is part of the mothers body.

Yes but she still has to give birth to it

If you're against abortion then bully for you, don't have one. Nothing gives you the right to try and guilt other women into not having one.

I actually find it truly staggering that anyone could be so arrogant to think that a rape victim should be forced to be pregnant, give birth, and either care for a baby she didn't want or suffer the trauma of giving it up for adoption.

So if a 13 year old girl is raped by her father and becomes pregnant, you think the rights of a 6 week old foetus trump her right not to suffer the further trauma of the above?

poppies are yellow Check your spelling and i never said fetus's have more rights than women they have a basic right to life like everyone. And you should have started the sentence with a capital i.

I haven't changed my mind. There are statistically next to no risks with legal abortion. And a high risk of death and serious complications from pregnancy and birth. Only an ignoramus would argue that the risks are comparable.

Of course fetuses have DNA that differs. But remove the fetus and it is not viable. If you can find a way of harmlessly transferring fetuses to pro-forced birth volunteers to carry to term, and raise to happy, healthy adulthood; we'll talk.

But until them, the absolute best health outcomes are good sex education, good access to contraceptives, legal abortion and good women's rights. That gives you the lowest rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Which is why I'm always confused by all the pro-forced birthers who also want to restrict sex education, contraception and women's right. Dumb as a bag of hammers.

Or even your own thread bluelion I clicked on this thread to read about JRM, not your views on abortion.

i appreciate you having to change the argument. First the fetus is part of the body, now you argue the fetus is not viable which i appreciate as i assume you believe fetus's that are viable at 22 weekstherefore the uk should reduce abortion to 2 weeks. But it makes no logical sense just because a fetus is dependant on someone does not mean they are not human or have life anymore than someone with a pacemaker or medicine to survive are dependant or a young toddler is dependant on someone to give them food/water.
secondly you keep saying theres next to no risks well the nhs does not say that they say 'excessive bleeding – occurs in about 1 in every 1,000 abortions' i also never said the risk was greater than giving birth i said there were risks with abortions which there are.
and noswsforyou you clicked on a thread that said because jrm was pro life that made him a scary prospect for pm i think its completely reasonable to debate that point. But then you do not want debate.

Demon Headmaster! So funny. I do find him weird and creepy, he just gives out that vibe.

Bluelion you're turning the thread into a debate about abortion. You could just say I don't think that his abortion stance precludes him from bring a good PM and then ride off on your high horse. You're right, no-one wants to debate you. Some of us want to talk about the topic of the thread, not your views on biology.

He’s Walter Softy reincarnate.

Mate there really is no law against full stops and paragraphs you know.

And btw foetus is a correct spelling.

A woman's choice.

Where did I say the fetus was the same as the mother's body? I did say it was the mother's body to do with as she wishes. And it is.

Safe, legal and rare. The countries that manage that are all counties that have good women's rights, legal abortion, safe and easy access to contraceptives and good sex education. Switzerland, Netherlands etc. That's how you reduce abortion. Not by trying to force women to give birth.

Nicaragua, where abortion is completely illegal in all cases, women still have them and die in large numbers. Is that what you want?