Rees-Mogg is, however, not some kind of joke, as Boris Johnson also appeared to be once upon a while. He is an earnestly serious politician intent on advancing his views, which are utterly alien to those of most people in the UK. I respect his right to oppose gay marriage and abortion. I think he is utterly wrong on both counts, as I do think the Roman Catholic faith has called these issues incorrectly. But I do not now think it appropriate (which is something different from a right) for a person holding such views to seek high office, or candidly, ministerial office in the UK, when they are so deeply antagonistic to the human rights of a majority of people in this country.
Politics is about expressing opinion, of course. But political office is different. Political office is about acting in the best interest of all, and not in the interest of a section of society. Those who successfully hold public office show that they are sensitive to the greater demands that responsibility to all requires of them. Rees-Mogg has clearly indicated he is unable to accept that responsibility and as such is not suited to any ministerial office.
The Curajus State and its monopoly on GoodThink, no?
It is rather violating a basic tenet of democracy.
Actually, looking up the Islamic views on abortion they appear akin to the old Catholic ones, not permissible after the quickening (which they put at 4 months, rather than the older Catholic perhaps 3). And rape ain’t a reason to go against that either.
Foetal abnormality isn’t a general exemption either.
And here’s the BBC’s GCSE notes on it:
Abortion is not permitted within Islam unless it’s to save the mother’s life. Even if a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, this cannot be carried out until the baby has been born.
The later the abortion takes place the worse it is thought to be. Some Muslims believe that for the first four months of pregnancy the woman has greater rights than the foetus but that after this time they are equal.