Rees-Mogg

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Damo
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:04 pm
Been Liked: 1798 times
Has Liked: 2776 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Damo » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:05 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Conservatives: Human life is sacred and shouldn't be aborted.
Also Conservatives: Child benefit cap on two kids! Why should we have to pay for your kids' food?
That's exactly the attitude that keeps them in power.
I can forgive out dated views, when levied against Corbyn wanting me to contribute to the feckless

AndrewJB
Posts: 3825
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1165 times
Has Liked: 761 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by AndrewJB » Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:22 pm

Rees-Mogg's Christianity doesn't extend to looking after the poor and the disabled according to his voting record.

dsr
Posts: 16199
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4855 times
Has Liked: 2580 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by dsr » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:06 pm

Greenmile wrote:I bite my cuticles - they are composed of living cells. Your understanding of the basic science here seems way off. Something can be made up of "human" cells and be alive without being a human being. Sperm for example. Am I murdering millions every time I use a condom, in your opinion?
I know that your toenails and your sperm are not human beings. I have never said that they are. What I am saying is that unborn babies are human beings - the fact that your toenails are not human beings is not (in my opinion) relevant to an abortion debate.

If you like, I will concede that your sperm are alive and are not human beings - you have made a very clever (pedantic) point. But your point is not enough to prove that babies, whether before or after birth, are not human beings.

yTib
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:39 pm
Been Liked: 745 times
Has Liked: 701 times
Location: Château d'If

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by yTib » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:12 pm

one of the greatest comedy creations ever.

i'm sure his next child will be called hercules.

yTib
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:39 pm
Been Liked: 745 times
Has Liked: 701 times
Location: Château d'If

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by yTib » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:28 pm

dsr wrote:But your point is not enough to prove that babies, whether before or after birth, are not human beings.
babies?

when does one become a baby? define a baby.

as usual dsr your superiority complex blinds you to even the most elementary argument.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7653
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1917 times
Has Liked: 4254 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:58 pm

yTib wrote:one of the greatest comedy creations ever.

i'm sure his next child will be called hercules.
Surely Septimus - to follow Sixtus?, though Rees Mogg displayed a poor knowledge of Latin if he thought Sixtus was linked to "sixth" child. The sixth in Latin would be Sextus.
Sixtus means "polished"

yTib
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:39 pm
Been Liked: 745 times
Has Liked: 701 times
Location: Château d'If

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by yTib » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:00 pm

polished would go against his views on the e.u. though.

i see what he's up to. using his scrotum as propaganda.

dsr
Posts: 16199
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4855 times
Has Liked: 2580 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by dsr » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:05 pm

yTib wrote:babies?

when does one become a baby? define a baby.

as usual dsr your superiority complex blinds you to even the most elementary argument.
Define a baby? There's loads of ways to define a baby. As as anyone who has been allowed to see the ultrasound scans of many an expectant mother knows, a conglomeration of cells only a few weeks into pregnancy can certainly be defined as a baby - can you honestly say that those expectant mothers are wrong?

But anyway, the emotive term "baby" is why I have (most of the time) referred to them as "human beings". This, in my view, is scientific fact; I know greenmile has proved that toenails aren't human beings, but that's the limit of the scientific counter-evidence so far. If "human being" is not accurate, what should the term be?

Greenmile
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1155 times
Has Liked: 4517 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Greenmile » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:53 pm

dsr wrote:Define a baby? There's loads of ways to define a baby. As as anyone who has been allowed to see the ultrasound scans of many an expectant mother knows, a conglomeration of cells only a few weeks into pregnancy can certainly be defined as a baby - can you honestly say that those expectant mothers are wrong?

But anyway, the emotive term "baby" is why I have (most of the time) referred to them as "human beings". This, in my view, is scientific fact; I know greenmile has proved that toenails aren't human beings, but that's the limit of the scientific counter-evidence so far. If "human being" is not accurate, what should the term be?
Your imaginary expectant mothers are wrong. You are wrong. The accurate term for a foetus is "a foetus". Try looking into the science.

aggi
Posts: 9653
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2319 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by aggi » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:53 pm

This, in my view, is scientific fact

This is my favourite line in the debate so far.

dsr
Posts: 16199
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4855 times
Has Liked: 2580 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by dsr » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:08 pm

Greenmile wrote:Your imaginary expectant mothers are wrong. You are wrong. The accurate term for a foetus is "a foetus". Try looking into the science.
Is there an official scientific definition for "baby"? If so, what is it?

Anyway, many words in English have different meanings depending on context. Baby is one of them.

And just because a foetus is a foetus, does that automatically mean it cannot be a human being? A baby can be a human being as well, can't it? A man can be a human being? We can do both.

(By the way, not all expectant mothers are imaginary. Some of them are real, and some of them genuinely do believe that it's a baby inside them. No doubt they would welcome your insight.)

Greenmile
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1155 times
Has Liked: 4517 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Greenmile » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:51 pm

dsr wrote:Is there an official scientific definition for "baby"? If so, what is it?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/infant.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fetus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dsr
Posts: 16199
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4855 times
Has Liked: 2580 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by dsr » Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:19 am

Thank you. So Mosby's medical dictionary officially confirms that a foetus is a human being. So many people would have refused to post that link when it went against the point they were trying to make; good for you.

"fetus [fē′təs]
Etymology: L, fruitful
the unborn offspring of any viviparous animal after it has attained the particular form of the species; more specifically the human being in utero after the embryonic period and the beginning of the development of the major structural features, from the ninth week after fertilization until birth. Kinds of fetal anomalies include anideus, lithopedion, mummified fetus, parasitic fetus, and sirenomelia. Also spelled foetus. Compare embryo. See also prenatal development. fetal, foetal, adj.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier."
This user liked this post: Rowls

Rowls
Posts: 14659
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5646 times
Has Liked: 5875 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Rowls » Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:23 am

I'd like to thank Greenmile too for providing us with an official agency for officially defining things.

No longer will I have to rely on private companies and outfits like the OED to define things - we now have an official definitive definer of all that is defintely definitively definite.

Excellent.

vinrogue
Posts: 1415
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:26 am
Been Liked: 339 times
Has Liked: 184 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by vinrogue » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:13 am

I find it interesting that the Labour Party are up in arms about JRM and his view on Gay Marriage but they show little desire to go for another high profile anti gay marriage leader. I believe Angela Merkel recently voted against Gay Marriage in Germany saying for her marriage is between a man and woman but I am sure it doesn't matter to Mrs Cooper and her party that the self proclaimed leader of the EU voted against Gay Marriage this is about JRM only.

Spijed
Posts: 17932
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 3028 times
Has Liked: 1324 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Spijed » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:02 am

As far as I see it, those who think a woman is wrong to have an abortion even though she may have been raped must feel she is in some way to blame for it, otherwise they would have far more understanding of the trauma the woman must have gone through or may do for the rest of her life.

If they feel the woman must still carry the baby despite all the feelings of guilt, depression and unhappiness on her part they are pretty heartless in my view.

I can't see how Christian values offer sympathy on one hand and yet allow a woman to feel depressed, to the point of possible suicide on the other.

dsr
Posts: 16199
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4855 times
Has Liked: 2580 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by dsr » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:15 am

The point is, Spijed, for those who believe that a foetus/unborn baby is human, there is no difference in principle from the foetus.baby point of view, between being depressed and killing the foetus and being depressed and killing a newborn baby. Obviously there is a difference to the woman because with a newborn you have got the option of childcare or even adoption; when you're pregnant, it's all or nothing. And I doubt that if I was a woman in that position I would have the strength to carry the baby to term, and I certainly wouldn't condemn any woman that had an abortion; but nonetheless, it's still two human beings that we're talking about.
This user liked this post: Spijed

AndrewJB
Posts: 3825
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1165 times
Has Liked: 761 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by AndrewJB » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:24 am

The conversation should be wider than abortion or gay marriage, and consider the application of Rees-Movg's Christianity to things like military intervention, wealth, how we look after our disabled citizens, and how we treat the poor - all of which subjects he seems to take a profoundly in-Christian stance.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3825
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1165 times
Has Liked: 761 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by AndrewJB » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:24 am

Un-Christian.

Greenmile
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1155 times
Has Liked: 4517 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Greenmile » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:42 am

dsr wrote:Thank you. So Mosby's medical dictionary officially confirms that a foetus is a human being. So many people would have refused to post that link when it went against the point they were trying to make; good for you.

"fetus [fē′təs]
Etymology: L, fruitful
the unborn offspring of any viviparous animal after it has attained the particular form of the species; more specifically the human being in utero after the embryonic period and the beginning of the development of the major structural features, from the ninth week after fertilization until birth. Kinds of fetal anomalies include anideus, lithopedion, mummified fetus, parasitic fetus, and sirenomelia. Also spelled foetus. Compare embryo. See also prenatal development. fetal, foetal, adj.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier."
Well, yes, I suppose.

Remember when I said that the general consensus is that human life begins somewhere between 14 and 21 weeks? Well,one description of foetus from my link is "In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo." (emphasis mine), so it's certainly fair to say that a foetus becomes a human being as it develops, and I never meant to suggest otherwise - I'm certainly not in support of a woman's right to choose an abortion all the way up until the very end of her pregnancy.

However, another definition from the link includes the following ... "At 10 weeks, the fetus measures about 2.5 cm from the crown of the head to the rump. The face is formed but the eyelids are fused together. The brain is in a primitive state, incapable of any meaningful form of consciousness." (emphasis mine again)

Now I would argue that a "baby" or "human being" must, by definition, have consciousness. Without it, it's just a clump of (human) cells.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:01 am

If you are a bat **** mental person who believes in the stuff that Christians and Muslims believe in, then you are not going to have your mind changed by simply science are you?

ClaretMoffitt
Posts: 3896
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:19 pm
Been Liked: 1218 times
Has Liked: 807 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by ClaretMoffitt » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:27 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:If you are a bat **** mental person who believes in the stuff that Christians and Muslims believe in, then you are not going to have your mind changed by simply science are you?
I have no problem with your comment on Christianity but I take offence to that comment of exactly the same value and consequence about Islam because thats racist.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:37 am

Go away Ringo!

ClaretMoffitt
Posts: 3896
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:19 pm
Been Liked: 1218 times
Has Liked: 807 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by ClaretMoffitt » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:43 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Go away Ringo!
I was Ringo'ing these boards before Ringo.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:46 am

Only one way to settle this!

FIGHT!

ClaretMoffitt
Posts: 3896
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:19 pm
Been Liked: 1218 times
Has Liked: 807 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by ClaretMoffitt » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:52 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Only one way to settle this!

FIGHT!

Image

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Imploding Turtle » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:39 pm

Image
This user liked this post: AndrewJB

HatfieldClaret
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:29 pm
Been Liked: 605 times
Has Liked: 346 times
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by HatfieldClaret » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:25 pm

And ?

Caballo
Posts: 1235
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:31 am
Been Liked: 459 times
Has Liked: 476 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Caballo » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:03 pm

Well in turtle, that is the literal version of your message board modus operandi.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Imploding Turtle » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:08 pm

Literary?

Caballo
Posts: 1235
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:31 am
Been Liked: 459 times
Has Liked: 476 times

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Caballo » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:13 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Literary?
Ha ha serves me right for trying to be smart arse :lol: I could of course claim auto-correct but where would be the honesty in that!
This user liked this post: Imploding Turtle

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Rees-Mogg

Post by Imploding Turtle » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:15 pm

Haha. It's an easy mistake to make.

Post Reply