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

I think if life is considered to begin at conception, my opinion is then that any man who has had unprotected sex with a woman, has no right to have an opinion that abortion is wrong in cases of rape or severe health implications.

Any man expressing such views, I think, should be following his own example and never having sex with a woman without fully considering each act of such could be conceiving.

I am a Catholic and there are many of us who would abhor a child say who has been raped, having to go to full term. We don't hear enough against sexual violence in our churches, sadly.

The RC church knows all about sexual violence against children doesn't it? I can't remember JRM ever saying anything about the decades and decades of child abuse and cover up perpetuated by RC priests at all levels( and we'll never know of any abortions that resulted from that will we?) but it's 'morally indefensible' for a woman in all circumstances to ever abort a foetus? Honestly expressing your bigoted misogynistic views doesn't make you admirable - you are still a bigoted misogynist.

He wasn't asked about child abuse in the RC church

Why bring child abuse into the picture?
The man simply believes that unborn life is a life and therefore sacrosanct, and although I don't have those views ( for veryearly abortion) he is entitled to his own view on that.
This is a real storm in a teacup.?⚡️☕️

I trying to understand why aman who is a father shouldn't have a view on abortion.

Just an excuse to enjoy a bit on Rees-Mogg bashing, at least he has managed to stay loyal to one wife .

We don't actually know that, do we?

I think we would have heard , but suppose he isn't yet an OAP so has plenty of time

I find his views abhorrent, but at least he answered the question honestly.

I'm sure if he was asked his views on child abuse in the church he'd give them, maryeliza.

Seems honest answers even if not agreed with are not respected,

I think child abuse is very relevant. The men of the Catholic Church see themselves in charge by 'God's' will- just as many Conservatives do and because of this they allow themselves to believe they do not have to consider anyone who is weaker than them or currently in a weaker position.

They will wage war, abuse children but whoa betide the women who thinks her body should not be a baby-making factory against her will.

The English working-class have always been swayed by the person who presents as an upper-class toff so I am not surprised - but I am a bit horrified - by this man being attractive to some. But a leader of the country - God forbid (at least I hope she does).

I find his views abhorrent, but at least he answered the question honestly.

I am glad he did too Maggiemaybe. It shows him up as one of those who, using either a god or an ideology, believe they know better than others what is best for them.

He probably has many other views with which I disagree, which is why I personally would not want him to represent me in Parliament. Why focus on this single issue? He's not in a position to change the law, so why worry? Right or wrong, he's entitled to free speech, like anyone else.

Free speech is supported here by the hard left but not free speech of a Tory

He was asked to comment on abortion, he made it clear that the law in this country stands and he does not judge others for their decision. He is entitled to his beliefs and was clear about them instantly.

We have become inured to the mass murder of children as a convenience to ourselves. A good many people have more than one termination, when perfectly adequate contraception exists.

All this 'men telling women what to do rubbish' is bizarre. How late do we want women to have the right to terminate a pregnancy now, when clearly some of those babies are viable?

He has some principles and was clear about them and the fact that no change is mooted in the law, and that he doesn't judge. He said he does not support it which is something else entirely. Maybe he finds, as I do, killing of any life distasteful.

I had to face the issue and the consequences, which still haunt me 40 years on. I am never comfortable that the decsion I made was right. There is no right on that one.

He did not raise the topic, he was asked and responded with clarity.

He is entitled to his opinion.

It's easy enough to welcome all unwanted children into the world but the obligation is surely a continuing one. Someone should ask Jacob Rees Mogg whether, if his wife was raped and brought a child into the world, he would love and cherish that child and provide it with an expensive private education and maybe an exotic Latin Christian name. Or would the child be someone else's responsibility?

What has a child's name to do with abortion? How petty

Such envy is troubling

Yes JRM is entitled to his opinion and we still have free speech in this country. Many of us may not agree but we are entitled to that too. Think he answered the question honestly according to his beliefs. Not all politicians would have done that.

If he has this view of the sanctity of (all) life, presumably he will oppose all forms of assisted dying?

Making abortion illegal kills. Backstreet abortions lead to deaths. The ten commandments don't include 'ban abortion'. Jesus was a compasionate man.

Thankfully his beliefs will have no bearing on our lives.

...just like it is for most of us.

Abortion in GB is secure as a woman's right.

the 6th commandment - thou shalt not kill

A child's name is a measure of how much he is loved and valued. If Mr Rees Mogg were to name his son Wayne or Darren you'd know that he didn't see the child as a proper part of his family.

I agree with Bibbity