To find it utterly chilling that Tory MP Danny Kruger has said that he doesn’t believe women should have absolute right of bodily autonomy?

[AngeloMysterioso]

During a House of Commons debate yesterday Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes said-

“I recognise the degree of distress and concern felt by many members in the house on the supreme courts decision… I probably disagree with most members who’ve spoken so far about this question.

“They think that women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy in this matter, whereas I think that in the case of abortion, that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved.

“But we can disagree on that question, and I offer to other members who are trying to talk me down, that this is a proper topic for political debate, and my point to the front bench, is I don’t understand why we are lecturing the United States on a judgement to return the power of decision over this political question to the states, to democratic decision makers, rather than leaving it in the hands of the courts.”

(underlining is my own emphasis)

Telegraph - Women do not have ‘absolute right of bodily autonomy’, says Tory MP Danny Kruger

Daily Mail - Prue Leith's religious Tory MP son Danny Kruger says he doesn't agree that 'women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy' in debate over US abortion ban - and British MPs should not 'lecture' US over their democratic process

Evening Standard - “Women ‘don’t have an absolute right to bodily autonomy’, says Tory MP Danny Kruger”

Spectator- “In defence of Danny Kruger”

AIBU to think this is rather terrifying, in light of what’s just taken place in the US and the fact that, with BJ’s Tory leadership hanging in the balance there are rabid pro-lifers like Jacob Rees Mogg ready to take his place?

Nope, I'm with you.
Having given birth to a stillborn at 34 weeks, I can confirm that labour was a bastard, much as it was the other two times (probably more so as stillborns obviously don't tuck their heads in) and my so called foetus was legally registered as my son with a proper legal name.
It really wasn't so different to the births of his brothers in that sense. Same process.
So the only thing this woman changed was that she wanted the baby to be born dead, rather than alive, thinking the presence of an amniotic sac made a difference to the morals of the situation.
She was already pregnant enough to be suffering all the fun stuff and the baby was developed enough to survive without her. What did she actually gain by making sure her daughter was born dead?
I think early abortion should be available on demand without so many hoops to jump through but this is just horrendous.

Well he has an appropriate surname.

The grey area at the minute is things like neglect/harm, so for example drug use in pregnancy. At the moment a woman using drugs in pregnancy and goes on to have the baby will likely have the child removed, where as it we go for 100% foetus has zero rights, those babies surely couldn’t be protected as the mother would essentially have a clean slate at birth. I guess it could be treated differently if they intend to have and raise the baby.

Unfortunately pro-lifers are usually pro-birthers, once the baby is born to someone who either doesn’t want them, or doesn’t have the means to look after them that baby is now treated as an inconvenience and those same pro-lifers will be complaining that their tax money is being used to support the babies they wanted to be born. They don’t actually care about the baby once they’re born at all. Being pro-life is okay, if you only apply that belief to yourself, it isn’t right to apply that to others.