.. to be appalled by this news about Jacob Rees-Mogg on GMB today

Well he is a catholic I think, and some catholics still feel like that. He is entitled to hold this view as a person, but he should not use his own personal views to influence the law.
I don't know why this has come up. Do some M.P.s want the law on abortion changed?

Let us hope he does not become PM.

And let us hope that neither his wife nor one of his DDs find themselves in a situation where they have this sort of difficult decision to make. I am in general of the mind that abortion is a last resort, as I have seen the emotional problems that can follow on from this during my hospital career; but blanket opposition shows a complete inability to understand the problems that women face.

Well lucky for for him his penis will never put him in a situation where he will need to have an abortion.

Men making decisions regarding women's rights and bodies always makes me want to slam my head into a wall.
What one woman decides to do with her body does not affect him and is none of his business.

Not only Catholics, some believe in the right to life and abortion takes away that right.

The law will not change

There is no chance the law will change. I didn't see GMB so don't know whether this is a recent comment of his or whether it is something dug out of the archives because of the news that many grass roots conservatives would like him as a future leader. He has always said he is not interested it the leadership and in fact recently said his ambition is to continue representing his constituents to the best of his ability. I am also Catholic but am not against abortion - I don't believe a woman would chose abortion lightly.

And Annie some people believe the woman's right is not trumped by the foetus' right

A person's beliefs are their own, but as said before, I dislike the idea intensely of a male speaking about women's choices.

J R-M, but often seems to me to behave as a caricature of a politician, someone from another era, very out of touch with modern ideas.

There are many complex issues surrounding the ethics of abortion, but I don't think a blanket ban is right - most especially where a woman has been subjected to rape, or if the child is likely to have very severe health problems and such incidences demand compassion.

Sometimes abortion can be seen to be 'too easy' an option and by a minority is used as birth control - to my mind this extreme is clearly wrong too.

I cannot understand the mindset of anyone who who would want a woman to carry the result of her rape to term.

the problem is JRM has clearly said that the "whip" he will pay heed to is not the one in the HOC.s but the higher one of his church ..not good news for his constituents I think.Religious beliefs should be parked at the door along with personal problems when you go to work...any work..but its more important if those beliefs impact huge numbers of people...he also said he can never agree with same sex marriage ...isn't it good he can be married to the love of his life but wants to deny others the same

the statement was made this morning Ilovecheese

I am aware of that devongirl, some believe life begins at conception therefore the foetus is a baby .

I will not judge pro or anti abortion beliefs

Paddyann, it is not possible to leave one's religious beliefs at the door and pick them up when convenient

I think its unreasonable to impose them on others though, if in a position to do so.

Doesn't every politician impose their beliefs on others ? If they didn't they would never vote in the house surely

As Anniebach says.

In addition foetus is not the name of a thing it is the the name of a stage in the development of a human being in just the same way as we use names like baby, toddler, teenager or adult. Most unfortunately, foetus has become a way of depersonalising the first stage in the life of a human being.

JRM is being true to Christianity. He has my deepest respect since you can never park your Christianity and be true to Almighty God.

But not everyone is a Christian, and MPs are supposed to represent all their constituents.

sorry I disagree ,you can put your own beliefs aside when the circumstances require it ,thats what most people do on a daily basis .Sometimes you have to see other points of view

He may be a Catholic, he may believe in religious teachings but as an MP he has to appreciate that his religious views on the sanctity of life do not apply to women and wombs.

In this day and age women can and do decide and determine their own lives and whether they want to give birth and become mothers.

Not every conception is joyous. Some are tragic and horrific, and for a women to be forced to carry to term a baby created through violence or struggle, is unreasonable.

'Choice'. Thank goodness we have it.

I think my comment would be 'so what?'
Unless JRM were trying to get abortion laws changed, and he was in a powerful position ( he isn't) then why worry.He is entitled to his view, and was no doubt asked about his own views.
There are probably a number of MP's who feel the same, just as there are a number of the general population who do too.

His constituents know where he stands and made their decisions accordingly.

Not all constituents are pro abortion . Not all constituents are pro same sex marriage, not all constituents are pro selling of arms, I doubt there is one constituency where there is 100% support for all decisions made by their MP

At least he was honest.

I agree Annie.

JRM is entitled to his views, whether influenced by his religious beliefs or not.

I think airing them is fine too. Discussion is healthy and I respect his right to believe as he does.

I'd like to think he respects others who think differently.