Jacob Rees-Mogg
Discussion
Boydie88 said:
jjlynn27 said:
It's not a baby. Up-to week 9 it's not even a fetus. Given that most of your posts could be distilled to 'omg, lefties!' the above post is hardly surprising.
Heart starts beating around 6, after that, it is a life in my opinion.Boydie88 said:
jjlynn27 said:
It's not a baby. Up-to week 9 it's not even a fetus. Given that most of your posts could be distilled to 'omg, lefties!' the above post is hardly surprising.
Heart starts beating around 6, after that, it is a life in my opinion.Rovinghawk said:
Boydie88 said:
Heart starts beating around 6, after that, it is a life in my opinion.
An alternative definition is when it's capable of independent life rather than being dependent on the mother. I'm not sure what age that is.Rovinghawk said:
Boydie88 said:
Heart starts beating around 6, after that, it is a life in my opinion.
An alternative definition is when it's capable of independent life rather than being dependent on the mother. I'm not sure what age that is.Boydie88 said:
jjlynn27 said:
It's not a baby. Up-to week 9 it's not even a fetus. Given that most of your posts could be distilled to 'omg, lefties!' the above post is hardly surprising.
Heart starts beating around 6, after that, it is a life in my opinion.Zod said:
Boydie88 said:
jjlynn27 said:
It's not a baby. Up-to week 9 it's not even a fetus. Given that most of your posts could be distilled to 'omg, lefties!' the above post is hardly surprising.
Heart starts beating around 6, after that, it is a life in my opinion.You won't get a death certificate before 24 weeks and you can't normally abort after 24 weeks, so the law seems pretty clear on this.
irocfan said:
Rovinghawk said:
Boydie88 said:
Heart starts beating around 6, after that, it is a life in my opinion.
An alternative definition is when it's capable of independent life rather than being dependent on the mother. I'm not sure what age that is.Especially one the presented itself well after birth.
gooner1 said:
irocfan said:
Rovinghawk said:
Boydie88 said:
Heart starts beating around 6, after that, it is a life in my opinion.
An alternative definition is when it's capable of independent life rather than being dependent on the mother. I'm not sure what age that is.Especially one the presented itself well after birth.
If we're all being honest with each other, none of us know for sure the point at which a bunch of cells actually becomes a human being biologically, or when consciousness starts. We can all posit various hypotheses and choose to believe one or another with varying vehemence, but we don't KNOW. This much is evident, at the very least, from the last x pages of debate in this thread.
We do all know however that even as a group of cells - assuming no complications - that group of cells will eventually become a human being.
Therefore is not entirely without foundation to assert that if you destroy that group of cells then you are denying the creation of a life.
So regardless of what you choose to believe on the subject; and regardless of what policy you choose to apply regardless of the former; logically you can't fault someone for having an anti-abortion position because that position is based on something that we all know to be a fact.
Edited by Angrybiker on Tuesday 24th October 17:33
Rovinghawk said:
Boydie88 said:
Heart starts beating around 6, after that, it is a life in my opinion.
An alternative definition is when it's capable of independent life rather than being dependent on the mother. I'm not sure what age that is.Angrybiker said:
They end up in the same logical grouping as 'can't survive independently'.
If we're all being honest with each other, none of us know for sure the point at which a bunch of cells actually becomes a human being biologically, or when consciousness starts. We can all posit various hypotheses and choose to believe one or another with varying vehemence, but we don't KNOW. This much is evident, at the very least, from the last x pages of debate in this thread.
We do all know however that even as a group of cells - assuming no complications - that group of cells will eventually become a human being.
Therefore is not entirely without foundation to assert that if you destroy that group of cells then you are denying the creation of a life.
So regardless of what you choose to believe on the subject; and regardless of what policy you choose to apply regardless of the former; logically you can't fault someone for having an anti-abortion position because that position is based on something that we all know to be a fact.
He can have his beliefs that’s fine. The law is pretty clear though and has been for some time. I wouldn’t want to elect someone, or support a party lead by someone who wanted to change that law. There are too many unwanted children in the world as it is and too many severely disabled children etc without much of a quality of life that would only both increase in numbers if abortion was banned or the time limit severely reduced. The worst of it for me though is that a government ran by him doing something like this would be men telling women what to do with their bodies and that is just wrong. If we're all being honest with each other, none of us know for sure the point at which a bunch of cells actually becomes a human being biologically, or when consciousness starts. We can all posit various hypotheses and choose to believe one or another with varying vehemence, but we don't KNOW. This much is evident, at the very least, from the last x pages of debate in this thread.
We do all know however that even as a group of cells - assuming no complications - that group of cells will eventually become a human being.
Therefore is not entirely without foundation to assert that if you destroy that group of cells then you are denying the creation of a life.
So regardless of what you choose to believe on the subject; and regardless of what policy you choose to apply regardless of the former; logically you can't fault someone for having an anti-abortion position because that position is based on something that we all know to be a fact.
Edited by Angrybiker on Tuesday 24th October 17:33
Rees-Mogg has been clear if he were in such a position, he wouldn't force his personal views on the country, he knows even if he wanted to, he couldn't.
I'd much rather I had someone steering a direction that was honest and understood what is politically possible, than someone who lied and forced through policy knowing they were lying. We had that sort of character in Blair, the closet catholic.
I'd much rather I had someone steering a direction that was honest and understood what is politically possible, than someone who lied and forced through policy knowing they were lying. We had that sort of character in Blair, the closet catholic.
desolate said:
craigjm said:
If that was the definition then it would be legal to murder children up to about the age of 15
No.A child can live perfectly well without its mother from birth.
jsf said:
Rees-Mogg has been clear if he were in such a position, he wouldn't force his personal views on the country, he knows even if he wanted to, he couldn't.
I'd much rather I had someone steering a direction that was honest and understood what is politically possible, than someone who lied and forced through policy knowing they were lying. We had that sort of character in Blair, the closet catholic.
Problem is though vast swathes of people thought Blair and others were honest and understood what was politically possible etc etc. It is the passage of tile and hindsight that allows that view to change. Rees Mogg could be just as bad if not worse you just don’t know. I'd much rather I had someone steering a direction that was honest and understood what is politically possible, than someone who lied and forced through policy knowing they were lying. We had that sort of character in Blair, the closet catholic.
craigjm said:
Do you really think so? Let’s take the average baby and leave it on its own and see what happens after a few days
Why would you do that?Just give it someone to look after. That would be the sensible thing to do.
Try that with the contents of an abortion bucket.
Caveated by the fact I would strongly support the close monitoring of the latest time a legal abortion can be performed, and be very conservative.
craigjm said:
Problem is though vast swathes of people thought Blair and others were honest and understood what was politically possible etc etc. It is the passage of tile and hindsight that allows that view to change. Rees Mogg could be just as bad if not worse you just don’t know.
That's very true, we never know what we are truly buying. The fact he is openly catholic doesn't put me off him though, even though I don't agree with his views on this subject. I find all religions bonkers, but at least there is some logic behind his position on abortion based on his moral stance. No one will be able to put any political pressure on him by trying to break the story of what he genuinely believes, which you couldn't say for Blair.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff