Jacob Rees-Mogg
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 steeleye20 Online  Croydon 08 Sep 17 1.29pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Got no problem with him being an MP just don't want anyone that religious near policy making. Bit late for that we have got Mrs May.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 08 Sep 17 2.14pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
no, true but i do know the totally inflexible hold Catholic beliefs have on some people in that Church and one of those people is Jacob going by the transcript of the interview. He would have to lapse to put his daughter first. Sure, but he isn't totally inflexible is he. He's giving his personal views. He's not talked about imposing them on others. His personal view on abortion matches many people's views on it. But like both of us on this he compromises for others....though I would like to see it brought down from 22 to 16 weeks. Jamie thinks that this is a tactic to the eventual banning of abortion but it certainly isn't from my perspective....banning most things just leads to underground activity: It's a compromise. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Sep 2017 2.15pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Sep 17 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Sure, but he isn't totally inflexible is he. He's giving his personal views. He's not talked about imposing them on others. His personal view on abortion matches many people's views on it. But like both of us on this he compromises for others....though I would like to see it brought down from 22 to 16 weeks. Jamie thinks that this is a tactic to the eventual banning of abortion but it certainly isn't from my perspective....banning most things just leads to underground activity: It's a compromise. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Sep 2017 2.15pm) Best to invest in gin and knitting needles then. Have all the back streets been gentrified yet?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 08 Sep 17 2.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Best to invest in gin and knitting needles then. Have all the back streets been gentrified yet? I don't know anyone who is making that policy argument for the country at large. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Sep 2017 2.52pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 08 Sep 17 2.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Ah, but you said 'acceptance' of others views. He isn't able to go that far for that would make him not a full on Catholic. Funny old world indeed. Well there are a number of Catholic MP's in Parliament, of all persuasions, it would be a shame if others felt inhibited by this type of thinking.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 10 Sep 17 7.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
On the money
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | Hrolf The Ganger 10 Sep 17 8.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
On the money Yawn. Religion and politics don't mix, so any arguments on that basis are irrational.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Sep 17 1.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Sure, but he isn't totally inflexible is he. He's giving his personal views. He's not talked about imposing them on others. His personal view on abortion matches many people's views on it. But like both of us on this he compromises for others....though I would like to see it brought down from 22 to 16 weeks. Jamie thinks that this is a tactic to the eventual banning of abortion but it certainly isn't from my perspective....banning most things just leads to underground activity: It's a compromise. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Sep 2017 2.15pm) The origin of the 24 week threshold isn't about compromise, its the point at which its reasonable, given current medical technology, that a live birth would result in a high probability of death, and certainty of catastrophic disability. Even with modern medical technology, 24 weeks and before, has a diagnostic criteria of high probability of death and almost certain of serious and permanent brain damage. A few years ago Nadine Dorres and co, challenged this on the basis that the medical situation had changed. It hasn't. The problem of births before the 24 week threshold is that the body in utero is statistically insignificant, to sustain life or reasonable quality of life - because the child when born will not be sufficiently developed. There is no scientific basis, as agreed by the BMA, to say that there is a reasonable basis to change that estimate at present. Ideally, I'd like to see a means by which abortions are no longer required, or needed. But I don't see that there is any scientific basis to say that a 16 week old foetus is capable of life.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Online Croydon 12 Sep 17 6.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The origin of the 24 week threshold isn't about compromise, its the point at which its reasonable, given current medical technology, that a live birth would result in a high probability of death, and certainty of catastrophic disability. Even with modern medical technology, 24 weeks and before, has a diagnostic criteria of high probability of death and almost certain of serious and permanent brain damage. A few years ago Nadine Dorres and co, challenged this on the basis that the medical situation had changed. It hasn't. The problem of births before the 24 week threshold is that the body in utero is statistically insignificant, to sustain life or reasonable quality of life - because the child when born will not be sufficiently developed. There is no scientific basis, as agreed by the BMA, to say that there is a reasonable basis to change that estimate at present. Ideally, I'd like to see a means by which abortions are no longer required, or needed. But I don't see that there is any scientific basis to say that a 16 week old foetus is capable of life. You are quite wrong human life begins with fertilisation, that is when an individual human being is created with its own genetic code. The heart of a typical embryo is beating at 8 weeks and the essential organs formed and already with its unique DNA. Life doesn't require any 'scientific basis' it started thousands of years before science law religion medecine or politicians even existed!!!! Something obviously went wrong somewhere as these people seem to think they can determine whether life can exist or not, how many lives do they contribute to ending? As for serious and permanent brain damage may I ask what you think actually happens in an abortion? When you think they are led to believe its the removal of excess tissue. Its actually mutiliation and murder of a human being. Sorry but that's what it is, and that life could have been yours or mine.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 12 Sep 17 6.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
You are quite wrong human life begins with fertilisation, that is when an individual human being is created with its own genetic code. The heart of a typical embryo is beating at 8 weeks and the essential organs formed and already with its unique DNA. Life doesn't require any 'scientific basis' it started thousands of years before science law religion medecine or politicians even existed!!!! Something obviously went wrong somewhere as these people seem to think they can determine whether life can exist or not, how many lives do they contribute to ending? As for serious and permanent brain damage may I ask what you think actually happens in an abortion? When you think they are led to believe its the removal of excess tissue. Its actually mutiliation and murder of a human being. Sorry but that's what it is, and that life could have been yours or mine. Women 'abort' naturally as well so imo they should have the right to decide whether to abort unnaturally as well early in the pregnancy especially if the fetus is unwanted or severely deformed or the result of sexual assault. Pro-choice here but would rather it wasn't as late as the law says it can be.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 12 Sep 17 6.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
You are quite wrong human life begins with fertilisation, that is when an individual human being is created with its own genetic code. The heart of a typical embryo is beating at 8 weeks and the essential organs formed and already with its unique DNA. Life doesn't require any 'scientific basis' it started thousands of years before science law religion medecine or politicians even existed!!!! Something obviously went wrong somewhere as these people seem to think they can determine whether life can exist or not, how many lives do they contribute to ending? As for serious and permanent brain damage may I ask what you think actually happens in an abortion? When you think they are led to believe its the removal of excess tissue. Its actually mutiliation and murder of a human being. Sorry but that's what it is, and that life could have been yours or mine. Not if you're Catholic.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
beak  croydon 12 Sep 17 7.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Bit late for that we have got Mrs May. She won't last.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.