Jacob Rees-Mogg

[otolith]

Boydie88 said:

otolith said:

1. How much do you think an abortion costs the NHS?
2. How much do you think a pregnancy taken to term costs the NHS?
3. I'm not happy with anyone going through an abortion if they can avoid getting pregnant, it's an invasive medical procedure, but frankly st happens and it's none of my damn business.

1. I guess, a lot.
2. I guess, a lot more.

I guess you'd hope the child contributes to society, offsetting that cost.

But yes, as above, agree we've gone off of why Mogg isn't a fan.

Some figures;

https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive...

An abortion costs £520 - £780 for a non-surgical procedure and £810 - £1430 for a surgical procedure. The reason for the spread in surgical costs is that two different techniques are used depending on the stage of the pregnancy. The split for 2015 was 55% non-surgical, 40% for the cheaper surgical option and 5% for the more expensive option.

Having a baby without complications on average costs the NHS £2,790. With complications, £5000. Obviously there are ongoing costs, with the IFS estimating average costs for newborns to be £1250 for girls and £1500 for boys link. And yes, we hope that they will go on to be productive taxpayers - probably the better chance of that happening is if a woman has her children at a stage in her life where she feels able to raise them as she would wish.

[Derek Smith]

Sylvaforever said:

I actually go along with the (I'm not btw) Church of Scotland's fairly pragmatic viewpoint. However certain sections of society look upon pregnancy as a starting point to wealth and property ownership (sic). In which case why should the unborn life be made to pay the ultimate sanction for moral destitution Derek?

You say that certain sections of society have a view. If you are part of that section and don’t want to have an abortion, then don’t have one. I’m happy for individuals to make the choice.

Angrybiker said:

Really? Pray tell. Especially considering the UK used to be Catholic before H.VIII and derives most laws from the principles taught there? And, if his views were not 'dictated by a Pope' (capital P please it is a formal recognised role even if you're not part of the faith) you'd think they were valid views?

There are a number of popes. If you want to capitalise the honorific, then I’m happy for you to do so.

You suggest that we derive ‘most’ of our laws from the (western?) catholic faith. I’d take exception to most, but if you mean matters such as not killing, ownership rights and that sort of thing then there is evidence to support these anti-social actions being ‘wrong’ and punishable well before the imposition of christianity, even if we take the highly dubious suggestion that it arrived in the first century AD as correct. Indeed most non christian societies have had similar beliefs of such actions being beyond the pale.

Most of the christian dictates as regards to what should be against the law have been discarded over the years. Stoning adulterers for instance was frowned upon from fairly early on, but others, like not eating meat on Friday, took some time to fall away.

We now see secular modern moral practices being accepted by various churches all over the world as their historical teachings are seen to be unfair, immoral and downright repulsive. It will be a while before the catholic church abandons its belief of women being inferior, but we can hope and pray, both being equally useless, that it happens as quickly as possible.

As for R-Mogg’s views being ‘valid’, I’m not sure what you mean by that. My belief is that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe. I also think that church and state should be separate. We’ve had MPs vote against moral legislation because their church says it will bring the wrath of gods down upon us. That’s wrong, invalid one might say.

MPs must make up their own minds and justify their actions by reasons they can support by logic. A book written centuries ago by hill farmers is not a valid justification. Neither is it moral, unless one should stone homosexuals, be allowed slaves, and beat women.

[TheLordJohn]

Derek Smith said:

Justify their actions by reasons they can support by logic.

Hahahahaha. Next joke!

[jjlynn27]

otolith said:

Since I was about to post exactly this, and since the point has been completely ignored, I shall bump it.

Any of the "life begins at conception" care to answer it? Let's make it easier, the box has 1000 viable but un-implanted embryos in it. Or one actual live, sentient baby. You do the maths, and tell us the outcome of your moral beliefs.

You are both missing the point. It's an exercise to justify JRM's abhorrent views. 'I don't agree with them, but' ...

[otolith]

jjlynn27 said:

You are both missing the point. It's an exercise to justify JRM's abhorrent views. 'I don't agree with them, but' ...

Smogg is entitled to his opinions on the matter. They appear to be ill-thought out, if he has thought them out at all rather than uncritically swallowing the dogma of his religion. I am, however, troubled by the attitude which holds that such a view is "abhorrent" - I would reserve that description for views which are the result of an undeniable moral failing rather than a failure of reason.

[Sylvaforever]

Zod said:

desolate said:

Sylvaforever said:

However certain sections of society look upon pregnancy as a starting point to wealth and property ownership (sic)..

What do you mean by that?

I think he's confusing the fact that single mothers have to be housed by councils, hence rightly getting priority in social housing allocation with their being given a property to own. He is easily confused.

ROFL you don't half clutch at straws.

How's life Anyway?

[anonymous-user]

Sylvaforever said:

ROFL you don't half clutch at straws.

How's life Anyway?

Did you mean pregnancy as a way of securing a relationship with a man to provide a home?

[jjlynn27]

otolith said:

jjlynn27 said:

You are both missing the point. It's an exercise to justify JRM's abhorrent views. 'I don't agree with them, but' ...

Smogg is entitled to his opinions on the matter. They appear to be ill-thought out, if he has thought them out at all rather than uncritically swallowing the dogma of his religion. I am, however, troubled by the attitude which holds that such a view is "abhorrent" - I would reserve that description for views which are the result of an undeniable moral failing rather than a failure of reason.

I'd argue that I'm equally entitled to have an opinion that someone 'in power' for the lack of better word, have views, that IMO, are better suited to 8th-century hellhole, rather than 21st century Britain.

The original point was that some are looking to justify those views, not because of the views themselves, but rather because JRM is the new Messiah.

[Jockman]

jjlynn27 said:

... because JRM is the new Messiah.

He's not, you know.

[Derek Smith]

otolith said:

Smogg is entitled to his opinions on the matter. They appear to be ill-thought out, if he has thought them out at all rather than uncritically swallowing the dogma of his religion. I am, however, troubled by the attitude which holds that such a view is "abhorrent" - I would reserve that description for views which are the result of an undeniable moral failing rather than a failure of reason.

How would you class condemnation of homosexuality? The attitude to women dictated by his religious sect? The banning of teaching the use of condoms with regards aid to African countries smitten by AIDS? Take up the church and you accept these restrictions on your actions. If you don't, then you are following a pick and mix type of religion, ie you invent your own. You can ignore any tract you want in any bible, rather than just those that the various popes have decided don't really matter any more.

There is another aspect of following the rule of church law; it is the immorality of it. A person might be required to do what they consider is wrong because the church says so. One instance which springs to mind is the covering up of abuse of children that the catholic, and others of course, church did for decades. The various vicars were obliged not to go to the state to stop the person offending but allow their betters to take the offender to another location where they could abuse children again. And lots and lots more on that theme.

Is that not abhorrent enough?

[otolith]

Derek Smith said:

Is that not abhorrent enough?

We're not talking about the many sins of the Catholic Church (in which you and I are likely in agreement) we're talking about one man's views on abortion. He has accepted his Church's view that it is essentially murder and is being specifically castigated for saying that he doesn't believe that the circumstances of the conception alter that. I believe that his starting point is utterly wrong, but if we were to accept it as he does we would be no more willing to accept abortion in cases of rape and incest than we would accept infanticide in the same circumstances.

I don't find his position abhorrent, I find it plain wrong. It's built on a falsehood that he has either accepted uncritically or has failed to apply sufficient thought to.

[andy_s]

otolith said:

Derek Smith said:

Is that not abhorrent enough?

We're not talking about the many sins of the Catholic Church (in which you and I are likely in agreement) we're talking about one man's views on abortion. He has accepted his Church's view that it is essentially murder and is being specifically castigated for saying that he doesn't believe that the circumstances of the conception alter that. I believe that his starting point is utterly wrong, but if we were to accept it as he does we would be no more willing to accept abortion in cases of rape and incest than we would accept infanticide in the same circumstances.

I don't find his position abhorrent, I find it plain wrong. It's built on a falsehood that he has either accepted uncritically or has failed to apply sufficient thought to.

Yeah, that's where I am with it.

[Zod]

andy_s said:

otolith said:

Derek Smith said:

Is that not abhorrent enough?

We're not talking about the many sins of the Catholic Church (in which you and I are likely in agreement) we're talking about one man's views on abortion. He has accepted his Church's view that it is essentially murder and is being specifically castigated for saying that he doesn't believe that the circumstances of the conception alter that. I believe that his starting point is utterly wrong, but if we were to accept it as he does we would be no more willing to accept abortion in cases of rape and incest than we would accept infanticide in the same circumstances.

I don't find his position abhorrent, I find it plain wrong. It's built on a falsehood that he has either accepted uncritically or has failed to apply sufficient thought to.

Yeah, that's where I am with it.

Yes, as I've said earlier in the thread, he is clever enough to have thought this through, so he is an intellectual and moral coward for not doing so.

[Derek Smith]

otolith said:

We're not talking about the many sins of the Catholic Church (in which you and I are likely in agreement) we're talking about one man's views on abortion. He has accepted his Church's view that it is essentially murder and is being specifically castigated for saying that he doesn't believe that the circumstances of the conception alter that. I believe that his starting point is utterly wrong, but if we were to accept it as he does we would be no more willing to accept abortion in cases of rape and incest than we would accept infanticide in the same circumstances.

I don't find his position abhorrent, I find it plain wrong. It's built on a falsehood that he has either accepted uncritically or has failed to apply sufficient thought to.

It's not only his acceptance of the church's view on abortion, it is also his views on gays, women, and all the other sins, as you quite rightly put it. There is no 'view' of his. There is no critical investigation of rights and wrongs. He is told. He accepts.

I'm picking on the catholic church solely because that is the one he chose or inherited, but it goes for many other religions as well. The conceit that this is the only true belief, that their god is the right and only one, shows a lack of logic.

I support the Salvation Army both financially and morally, but I reckon their version of religion is as pathetically stupid as every other one I've heard of. Talk to those who turn out of an evening and early morn along the Embankment and most will admit that they don't believe it, they just want to do something for the ignored. That I can understand. But an intelligent person accepting the mumbo jumbo and the dogma of catholicism is a bit scary.

[anonymous-user]

If he had toned down his views, or engaged his brain before his mouth, he would have been in with a shout as the next PM
However he can’t unsay what has been spoken.
I guess he didn’t have PM aspirations. As he doesn’t appear to be stupid enough to sabotage his own chances.

[Troubleatmill]

Jimboka said:

If he had toned down his views, or engaged his brain before his mouth, he would have been in with a shout as the next PM
However he can’t unsay what has been spoken.
I guess he didn’t have PM aspirations. As he doesn’t appear to be stupid enough to sabotage his own chances.

As I have said before...

Parents put kid into Sky Fairy nasty school.

Nasty School constantly drums into kid - very evil Sky Fairy arse gravy bullst.
Repeat every day for 18 years.

Guess what... Kid grows up going "Sky Fairy arse gravy bullst is awesome!!! "
And he will do it to his kids...

With a billion+ Catholics in the world - and His Poopiness the Hole saying "Abortion is evil!!!"
Either a billion+ Catholics are going to a bad fire, or less than a billion + are going "bks to this"

In a nice dictatorial parallel universe if I ruled the world - if parents ever subjected a minor to religion - I would have the death penalty on the parents.

I think it was Breadvan72 who put it quite succinctly " Kids have no more right to consent to sex and to religion being put on them"

If you are so sure you Sky Fairy is right. Let your kids find out on their own when they are 18+

[Sylvaforever]

Derek Smith said:

It's not only his acceptance of the church's view on abortion, it is also his views on gays, women, and all the other sins, as you quite rightly put it. There is no 'view' of his. There is no critical investigation of rights and wrongs. He is told. He accepts.

I'm picking on the catholic church solely because that is the one he chose or inherited, but it goes for many other religions as well. The conceit that this is the only true belief, that their god is the right and only one, shows a lack of logic.

I support the Salvation Army both financially and morally, but I reckon their version of religion is as pathetically stupid as every other one I've heard of. Talk to those who turn out of an evening and early morn along the Embankment and most will admit that they don't believe it, they just want to do something for the ignored. That I can understand. But an intelligent person accepting the mumbo jumbo and the dogma of catholicism is a bit scary.

Same with many "orgsnised" religions Derek, there seems to be a tipping point where individual belief is no longer enough..

[Furious_george]

I for one cant wait until this member of the landed gentry, elitely educated, hedge fund manager and until now permanent back bencher becomes PM and sticks it to the er, elites. He will definitely represent the common man, he really gets what its like to be a forgotten white van man.

Anyone who disagrees is an enemy of the People (tm the Daily Mail).

[Bill]

Boydie88 said:

A couple of questions to the pro-'choice', when do you draw the line on how many are permissible on the NHS?
Are you happy women using an abortion as birth control?

Everyone is quick to point out extreme situations, for which I agree there should be extenuating circumstances, but the majority of the time, this isn't the case.

How many use it as birth control? How any use it as back up when their birth control fails? And what percentage do that regularly?

The cost to the NHS is less than a pregnancy. I don't honestly care if people do use it as birth control. I'd prefer them not to, but no contraception (barring the Pope's favourite, abstention) is 100% and it's preferable to allow abortion on the NHS than in the backstreet or forcing unwanted children on people.

[LoFiHamster2]

Bill said:

I'd prefer them not to, but no contraception (barring the Pope's favourite, abstention) is 100% and it's preferable to allow abortion on the NHS than in the backstreet or forcing unwanted children on people.

I'm pretty sure the Pope doesn't believe abstention is 100% reliable