# Sad news from Lands End today. . .



## Captain America (Aug 28, 2012)

Long-time Lands End fan (first purchase around 1981). Today I ran into this and was shocked at the bad business decision this represents, at a time when the company wishes to gain back market share.

it's worth pointing out that a large majority of the public would oppose much of the goals here, and a smaller majority of the American public considerably opposed. Many more negatives than pluses here:

https://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/23...ortion-activist-gloria-steinems-organization/

I know there are some of us who have no qualms here, but it's not the story for most people. I'm kind of sad by this, and confused how this decision happened. Perhaps the old-gal network paid dividends here.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I expect major backlash, and will be part of it. Lands' End is not American Apparel or Hot Topic or something. Their demographic is not whiny elitists. And only about a third of women identify as feminist anyway. I'd largely given up on the brand for their dinky collars and ubiquitous non-iron chemical finishes, but this is added incentive to boycott and shop elsewhere.
I'll be sure to let them know that they screwed the pooch with an e-mail or two, of course.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

What a dumb move. I just enjoyed excellent customer service from LE that led directly to a purchase. Nothing else from them was on my horizon, and now nothing will be.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I fear this thread may end up needing to be sent to the interchange.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Yup, and probably before the end of the day._ Sigh . . . _


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I am not sure I understand: https://jezebel.com/lands-end-apologizes-for-featuring-gloria-steinem-pull-1761229657.

Lands' End is essentially apologizing for interviewing a respected, middle-of-the-road activist for equal rights. Odd.


----------



## CSG (Nov 22, 2011)

Dumb, dumb, dumb move. Unless they drop this sort of nonsense, I will no longer be a customer.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I really want to contribute to this thread. However, I fear that anything that I could offer would be misconstrued as being politically motivated and/or against the rules. Move this to the interchange and let the hilarity ensue.


----------



## shadoman (Jun 8, 2014)

RobertM said:


> I am not sure I understand: https://jezebel.com/lands-end-apologizes-for-featuring-gloria-steinem-pull-1761229657.
> 
> Lands' End is essentially apologizing for interviewing a respected, middle-of-the-road activist for equal rights. Odd.


Sad that they would allow themselves to be bullied into withdrawing from a great cause.



Dmontez said:


> I fear this thread may end up needing to be sent to the interchange.


That is where it should have been posted to begin with.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

Oldsarge said:


> Yup, and probably before the end of the day._ Sigh . . . _


Please.


----------



## Elmer Zilch (Dec 13, 2008)

shadoman said:


> Sad that they would allow themselves to be bullied into withdrawing from a great cause.
> 
> That is where it should have been posted to begin with.


True on both counts.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Well, that didn't take long. It's good to see they listen to their customers, excepting the short collars and no-iron finish haters.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Any company can make a decision to support a political cause, point of view, etc., but if so, they have to expect to alienate some segment of the population. This is why most companies try to stay pretty neutral - except for those that have built themselves up, in part, on their political views - it's bad for business. 

Hence, regardless of if one agrees or disagrees with LE's advocacy, the surprising thing to me is that they did it at all - not a good business move. But if management has the owner's support in this - and they are willing to take a financial hit for advocating for their views - then our Bill of Rights is working. 

If not clear from the above, I am not comment on the politics, just the business impact and legal aspect of a company advocating a political view.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I am guessing that some marketing personnel at LE will be getting their résumés in order.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

drlivingston said:


> I am guessing that some marketing personnel at LE will be getting their résumés in order.


For certain.


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

Well, if the people who decide where the money goes thought it was a good idea to begin with, that tells you what you need to know as a consumer, regardless of whether they run a particular targeted campaign or not.

Fading Fast's comments here are sound.

And I must add that I had given up on buying men's clothes from them anyways: the last batch of Hyde Parks I got featured collars that are an offense against textiles. I have JAB sports shirts with better collars.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

> Steinem had been interviewed by company CEO Federica Marchionni for the Lands' End "Legend Series," which features people "who have made a difference in both their respective industries and the world at large," according to the company


I think it was more the CEO's direction than some mid level marketing person.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Titus_A said:


> And I must add that I had given up on buying men's clothes from them anyways: the last batch of Hyde Parks I got featured collars that are an offense against textiles. I have JAB sports shirts with better collars.


I'd have to agree. There was a time when I would get some basics from them but more and more it's not worth the effort or money. I haven't bought anything from Land's End in years.

Good luck to them. This is sure to turn me off for good. I suppose they're trying to bolster their hipster bona-fides and maybe go in a different direction but there are far less polarizing ways of doing it.

If they are trying to appeal to a younger demographic, picking a tired old fossil like Gloria Steinem is an odd way of doing it. Perhaps they are trying to appeal to washed up old hippies from that generation. Who knows.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I suppose they're trying to bolster their hipster bona-fides...


Bingo. Stodgy LE has been trying hard to be J Crew for a while now, despite being closer to Sears or JC Penney. The same way that ads featuring homosexual couples and the like are trying to convey that the brand is for hip people, not you the khaki-wearing office drone, which is how to appeal to you,the khaki-wearing office drone, they figured they'd do a disingenuous nod to lefties because lefties are seen as cool. And look at the free publicity they got to boot! Edgy :crazy:


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I am sure that I am in the minority here but I really don't see any issue at all with what they were doing. As I understand, proceeds only from a specific type of monogram were going to be donated

And I personally have great respect for anyone who uses positive dialogue to try to influence the process, even if I disagree with that person. Steinhem felt the need for a crusade and led it. Good for her.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

A not too subtle reminder to no one in particular and everyone in general that we don't discuss politics in this forum of AAAC and that the rules of the forum apply here.

No one has earned an infraction yet, but some are getting close.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

I recently made my first Land's End purchases (OCBD) at Sears and liked them enough for the price. However, JC Penny's Stafford shirts were always good enough for me before. I will be switching back to them after this. That's all I'll say here.


----------



## thegovteach (Dec 2, 2012)

Sorry if I offended anyone on the post I deleted....but I taught high school government for 30 years....
First rule. You dont't let the kids know how you stand on ANY political issue....and now that I have retired, I now sometimes let my feelings known on certain issues.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I agree that this thread definitely belongs in The Interchange, but let me add my views to those who have submitted that this is a poorly judged endorsement of someone with whom I would not wish to be associated even in the most indirect manner of being a Lands End customer. Shocking judgment call.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

*good work, LE -- now work on your collars!*



vpkozel said:


> I am sure that I am in the minority here but I really don't see any issue at all with what they were doing. [...] Steinhem felt the need for a crusade and led it. Good for her.


Too right. After all, it's hardly "whiny elitists" who want to keep government out of decisions that a woman makes with her doctor: it's a majority of the country. Let's hope the majority starts agitating for a return to the old Hyde Park. I really liked those shirts.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Alright, Interchange!

The ERA was sort of an old joke circa the early 80s as I recall. It's downright antedeluvian now. Woman are the bulk of college students, they get hired more, fired less. They call in sick whenever they have a headache and rarely are seen five minutes after their shift ends. They are an entitled class that has the gall to ask for more. God help them if men pull an Atlas Shrugged and make women actually pull their own weight.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Tradical said:


> Too right. After all, it's hardly "whiny elitists" who want to keep government out of decisions that a woman makes with her doctor: it's a majority of the country. Let's hope the majority starts agitating for a return to the old Hyde Park. I really liked those shirts.


Constitutionally, there's clearly no federal role in the abortion debate, and thus it should be decided on the state level. Let's also remember that this isn't simply about "decisions that a woman makes with her doctor," as if we're talking about plastic surgery or a tummy tuck - some people believe (with good reason!) that abortion is the murder of an unborn child.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

It wouldn't affect my buying - I haven't bought anything from Land's End since probably the late 1980s - but it's certainly a boneheaded marketing maneuver; edgy is one thing, but deliberately alienating a huge marketshare pushes the concept too far.

That said, I've certainly never viewed Land's End as anything remotely "conservative" - it's traditional at its core, but its more a New England/sailing species of "traditional", which tends to appeal to liberals more than conservatives (sort of like LL Bean).

I used to love getting their catalogs back in the 80s, which were always full of interesting articles about shearing sheep and the like; I think maybe Patagonia catalogues best capture that flavor now.

DH


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Tiger said:


> Constitutionally, there's clearly no federal role in the abortion debate, and thus it should be decided on the state level. [...] some people believe (with good reason!) that abortion is the murder of an unborn child.


Thankfully, the Supreme Court has disagreed with this position for more than forty years, and continues to hold -- in the words of conservative chief justice John Roberts -- that "Roe is the settled law of the land," _stare decisis_ and a' that.

Yes, some people have the religious conviction that life begins at conception; some people have the religious conviction that the earth is 6,000 years old and that Bronze-Age middle eastern sky-god mythology belongs in science textbooks, others have the religious conviction that my bacon is unclean.

Some of those people (see above poster!) even read the terrifically bad novels written by a famously militant supporter of abortion rights (Ayn Rand) to fantasize about retreating to a land populated exclusively by men, where they can frolic with one another and discuss the virtues of hopsack without women giving them cooties.

Luckily, many of us who live outside the grasp of the American Taliban aren't bound by such superstitions, and -- if you read the aggregated national polls -- those who would like government to control what happens in the bedroom between consenting adults and what happens inside women's bodies are a diminishing portion of the electorate.

Heck, I'm pretty sure that even the current global face of American conservatism -- and the GOP's next presidential nominee, as well as a producer of what I'm sure are very fine clothes (!) -- is in favor of individuals, not the government, making their own health care decisions! Time's they have been a' changing.

This is some Good Interchange.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> it's certainly a boneheaded marketing maneuver; edgy is one thing, but deliberately alienating a huge marketshare pushes the concept too far.
> DH


Time will tell; it would appear that the free market (and perhaps whatever remains of Enlightenment rationality) is rewarding, rather than punishing, retailers who acknowledge that social conservatives are literally a dying breed. For example, here's a recent, brief piece from the Washington Post on the explosion of advertisements in the past year:

People my age know who Tim Cook is and simply don't care. From a marketing perspective, I'm guessing they're aimed at a different demographic than the pearl-clutchers. As Garrison Keillor once remarked, "The iPod was not invented by Baptists in Waco, TX."


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Tradical said:


> Thankfully, the Supreme Court has disagreed with this position for more than forty years, and continues to hold -- in the words of conservative chief justice John Roberts -- that "Roe is the settled law of the land," _stare decisis_ and a' that.
> 
> Yes, some people have the religious conviction that life begins at conception; some people have the religious conviction that the earth is 6,000 years old and that Bronze-Age middle eastern sky-god mythology belongs in science textbooks, others have the religious conviction that my bacon is unclean.
> 
> ...


Your disdain and nastiness for those with whom you disagree is palpable...and disgusting. I feel sorry for anyone who has the misfortune of being in your classroom, exposed to such a vicious and contemptible mind.

Unfortunately for concepts such as federalism, States' rights, proper role of the federal government, and the Constitution itself, the _Roe _v. _Wade _decision was an embarrassment that epitomized the injection of political opinion into the application of constitutional principles.

Religion? Why would you stick that in there? Is it because you've chosen to attack me as some sort of religious zealot? How sneaky! There are many people with absolutely no religious beliefs that abhor abortion. By the way, if a "child in utero" is killed during the commission of a crime, that child (whose existence you scoff at in your grossly disdainful manner) is considered a legal victim, as per federal law. I wonder why? Maybe you should ask the Taliban...


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

I'd be happy if I could order two pants in the same type, same size, different color at the same time and have them both fit. I'm batting 50-50.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Tradical said:


> Yes, some people have the religious conviction that life begins at conception


ha! You screwed up your talking points. You're supposed to claim that _huma_n life hasn't begun, or an _individual_ or _self-sufficient_ life, or some other _bogus_ qualifier. Because that measurable heart beat and responsiveness makes it pretty hard to call it unliving.
Oops, introducing science to your opinion. So sorry.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Tiger said:


> Your disdain and nastiness for those with whom you disagree is palpable...and disgusting. I feel sorry for anyone who has the misfortune of being in your classroom, exposed to such a vicious and contemptible mind.


My lecture halls and seminar rooms are, like the Trad Forum, politics-free zones. Political discussions happen here, where belief in individual liberty and scientific rationality is considered brutishly nasty but misogynist claims about women pass unnoticed, presumably as common sense.

Like I said -- good interchange!


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Tempest said:


> Because that measurable heart beat and responsiveness makes it pretty hard to call it unliving.


Been a few years since I watched my own kids' hearts beat on the ultrasound machine, but I'm pretty sure I had to wait for a at least a few paychecks after conception. As a Marxist biologist might say, Gametes unite! You have nothing to lose but your prezygotic isolation!


----------



## nbj08 (Feb 6, 2015)

Tradical said:


> Some of those people (see above poster!) even read the terrifically bad novels written by a famously militant supporter of abortion rights (Ayn Rand) to fantasize about retreating to a land populated exclusively by men, where they can frolic with one another _*and discuss the virtues of hopsack*_ without women giving them cooties.


Tradical,

(1) While I deeply disagree with your views, I still respect your right to have and hold them, but don't bring the hopsack into this!

(2) I am quite skeptical that a majority favor permitting certain procedures, like D&X. Surely you agree there is an amount of regulation that is reasonable. _See, e.g._, _Roe v. Wade_; _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_; _Gonzalez v. Carhart_.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

The Lands' End controversy illustrates for me how deeply politicized everything has become, politicized and humanized and sexualized, to the extent it is reduced and lost. I don't eat at Chick Fil A anymore after their Christian right-wing politics came to light, but if our country were not so divided ideologically, I might not have made that decision. In some ways, I think the intention of the consumer to influence political change is misplaced, almost encouraged, too, by those in power as a way to distract the consumer from efforts elsewhere, such as through the political system.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

RobertM said:


> The Lands' End controversy illustrates for me how deeply politicized everything has become, politicized and humanized and sexualized, to the extent it is reduced and lost. I don't eat at Chick Fil A anymore after their Christian right-wing politics came to light, but if our country were not so divided ideologically, I might not have made that decision. In some ways, I think the intention of the consumer to influence political change is misplaced, almost encouraged, too, by those in power as a way to distract the consumer from efforts elsewhere, such as through the political system.


Our country being deeply divided has no impact at all on your decision. That is yours and yours alone. And by participating you are part of the problem l, not the solution.

I am genuinely curious, what do you think of those who withold their patronage from a place that agrees with you politically but disagrees with their point of view?

We as first world humans have nothing at all to worry about anymore, so we invent things to cause controversy and be offended about. Personally, I think this approach is idiotic. We are an intelligent species - well at least for the most part - so I don't think it is impossible to disagree with someone's views and still support their right to say it and appreciate their passion. It ia the reason that I like both Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly. Dennis Miller and Bill Maher. Or why I can disagree with Cat Stevens and still love Peace Train.

Life is just not this hard, people.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I'd say we are pretty much on the same page, vpkozel.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

RobertM said:


> The Lands' End controversy illustrates for me how deeply politicized everything has become, politicized and humanized and sexualized, to the extent it is reduced and lost. I don't eat at Chick Fil A anymore after their Christian right-wing politics came to light, but if our country were not so divided ideologically, I might not have made that decision. In some ways, I think the intention of the consumer to influence political change is misplaced, almost encouraged, too, by those in power as a way to distract the consumer from efforts elsewhere, such as through the political system.


To the extent that this LE issue is politicized, it's because they chose to do it. Companies aren't stupid and if they think they can capitalize on a political issue to make a profit, they will do so. The same goes for Chik Fil A.

People, companies included, cannot have it both ways. They can't throw something like that in the face of their consumers and expect no backlash.


----------



## WillBarrett (Feb 18, 2012)

I’m a man of the Right in terms of both politics and Christian theology, so of course the piece in question bothered me. The bigger point is the injection of something inherently political into a sphere where it doesn’t have to go. I won’t be taking my business from LE because I’m not naïve enough to think that lots of other companies aren’t making donations I wouldn’t endorse. (I used to work for Gap, Inc. – I know how this all works). There’s a certain tone deafness here that was troubling, and it may be best to leave this sort of thing out of a catalog or even the website, unless you’re willing to offer coverage to other viewpoints. Let that sleeping dog lie, so to speak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

It does make one wonder. Would the so-called left-leaners have raised a stink if, say, Phyllis Schlafly or Sarah Palin had been featured? They probably would have. (Sorry, I can't really think of any other women who are conservative leaders, or women who are against equal rights, etc. Most of the conservatives that come to mind are old white men.)


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

RobertM said:


> It does make one wonder. Would the so-called left-leaners have raised a stink if, say, Phyllis Schlafly or Sarah Palin had been featured? They probably would have. (Sorry, I can't really think of any other women who are conservative leaders, or women who are against equal rights, etc. Most of the conservatives that come to mind are old white men.)


They would still be outside headquarters with pickets and iPods and pink hair three weeks from now, upset that LE was being sexist by not going out of business and donating all assets to Hillary 2016.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I doubt it, especially if there's a Starbucks nearby. "Hey, we've been out here an hour. Who wants to go get a Caramel Macchiato and talk about race relations."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Those of you who are unfortunate enough to be familiar with my posts here on AAAC will be aware that I am not, shall we say, fond of children. I have also expressed less than popular opinions vis a vis overpopulation. This said, even I draw the line at murdering the unborn. Mealy mouthed apologists may pretend to characterise it as other but it is what it is.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

If they're unborn, how can it be... never mind. It's not worth the energy.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RobertM said:


> If they're unborn, how can it be... never mind. It's not worth the energy.


But worth the energy of a worthless response?


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Well, that's a good point. Listen, if you want to win, I don't care. It is a little confounding, though, how a divergent view here meets with little respect.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RobertM said:


> Barely.


Your argument is so utterly compelling. What on earth was I thinking? Thank goodness you were on hand to straighten me out.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Apologies. It's a tough issue. It's emotional, whichever side you're on, and there seems no common ground.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

RobertM said:


> Well, that's a good point. Listen, if you want to win, I don't care. It is a little confounding, though, how a divergent view here meets with little respect.


OK, this kind of thing just confuses the heck out of me.

You are decrying the lack of respect to a divergent view, while specifically giving no respect to a divergent view.

If you want to express a view, then be prepared to defend it. If you aren't then don't express it.

As I said previously, life just isn't that hard.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> I doubt it, especially if there's a Starbucks nearby. "Hey, we've been out here an hour. Who wants to go get a Caramel Macchiato and talk about race relations."


While I disagree with the views you've expressed in this thread, this response did make me chuckle.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RobertM said:


> Well, that's a good point. Listen, if you want to win, I don't care. It is a little confounding, though, how a divergent view here meets with little respect.


The divergent view being that murdering babies is acceptable? I do not respect either the view or those who promote it.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Well said, old boy.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I respect debate that doesn't use demeaning and demonizing terms like "mealy mouthed" and "murdering babies." Respectful debate is fine. I don't see that happening here, unfortunately.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Or I shoulda said a wine shop. God knows, elite liberals seem to love their damned wine tastings.



Balfour said:


> While I disagree with the views you've expressed in this thread, this response did make me chuckle.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

RobertM said:


> If they're unborn, how can it be... never mind. It's not worth the energy.


Has anyone ever heard a pregnant woman call her (some other term for the living organism made of human tissue inside of her) something besides a baby???


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> Or I shoulda said a wine shop. God knows, elite liberals seem to love their damned wine tastings.


Nah, I liked the coffee example:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Tradical said:


> My lecture halls and seminar rooms are, like the Trad Forum, politics-free zones. Political discussions happen here, where belief in individual liberty and scientific rationality is considered brutishly nasty but misogynist claims about women pass unnoticed, presumably as common sense...


Whether your "lecture halls and seminar rooms" are free of politics or not wasn't my (rather obvious) point. The fact that you were so quick to attack via your mean spirited, inaccurate, and disdainful remarks speaks volumes about your character, and thus your suitability to instruct anyone. However, working in the same profession has taught me that integrity, kindness, and courtesy are often elusive traits in academia.

I yield to no one here on my devotion to political and individual liberties, but I'm smart enough to know the difference between the exercise of an individual liberty and murder, rape, assault, et al. Obviously, a distinction that some here are incapable of discerning. They are also incapable of defending their positions when challenged, other than by diversion and snarky innuendo...


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Tempest said:


> Has anyone ever heard a pregnant woman call her (some other term for the living organism made of human tissue inside of her) something besides a baby???


Yes, of course: in fact, 90% of all abortions in the United States occur during the first trimester, during almost all of which the organism is correctly known as an "embryo." Most abortions occurring later are due to fetal abnormalities (no, not red hair or the propensity to liberal ideas).

But yes, a very dear friend of mine still uses the word "baby" to refer to the anencephalic body she had removed from her uterus by D&E in the third trimester. Luckily she lives on the west coast of the United States, had the procedure, it saved her life, and she was able to get pregnant again (since the procedure was performed by a qualified physician rather than by an illegal amateur in a hotel room). I'm sure the husband of the Hindi woman who had the bad luck to miscarry in Ireland and was refused a lifesaving D&E a few years ago wishes they'd been somewhere like California, where the rights of fully grown women do indeed trump the rights of blastomeres and fertilized eggs: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman

But carry on. "Murder" indeed.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

RobertM said:


> Or I shoulda said a wine shop. God knows, elite liberals seem to love their damned wine tastings.


Can we please banish the horrific thought of whiny, elitist liberals and get back to fundamentals, like $500 shoes?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

RobertM said:


> Apologies. It's a tough issue. It's emotional, whichever side you're on, and there seems no common ground.


It's hard to find common ground when it comes to snuffing out a life.

Perhaps you can suggest a Solomonic solution?


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Another good point. I'm not sure I'm a whiny one myself but I've certainly been "wine-y." For now at least, I'll leave the $500 fundamental shoes to our fundamentalist Republican friends.



Tradical said:


> Can we please banish the horrific thought of whiny, elitist liberals and get back to fundamentals, like $500 shoes?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Tradical said:


> Yes, of course: in fact, 90% of all abortions in the United States occur during the first trimester, during almost all of which the organism is correctly known as an "embryo." Most abortions occurring later are due to fetal abnormalities (no, not red hair or the propensity to liberal ideas).
> 
> But yes, a very dear friend of mine still uses the word "baby" to refer to the anencephalic body she had removed from her uterus by D&E in the third trimester. Luckily she lives on the west coast of the United States, had the procedure, it saved her life, and she was able to get pregnant again (since the procedure was performed by a qualified physician rather than by an illegal amateur in a hotel room). I'm sure the husband of the Hindi woman who had the bad luck to miscarry in Ireland and was refused a lifesaving D&E a few years ago wishes they'd been somewhere like California, where the rights of fully grown women do indeed trump the rights of blastomeres and fertilized eggs: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman
> 
> But carry on. "Murder" indeed.


:icon_pale:


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Well said, Tradical.



Tradical said:


> Yes, of course: in fact, 90% of all abortions in the United States occur during the first trimester, during almost all of which the organism is correctly known as an "embryo." Most abortions occurring later are due to fetal abnormalities (no, not red hair or the propensity to liberal ideas).
> 
> But yes, a very dear friend of mine still uses the word "baby" to refer to the anencephalic body she had removed from her uterus by D&E in the third trimester. Luckily she lives on the west coast of the United States, had the procedure, it saved her life, and she was able to get pregnant again (since the procedure was performed by a qualified physician rather than by an illegal amateur in a hotel room). I'm sure the husband of the Hindi woman who had the bad luck to miscarry in Ireland and was refused a lifesaving D&E a few years ago wishes they'd been somewhere like California, where the rights of fully grown women do indeed trump the rights of blastomeres and fertilized eggs: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman
> 
> But carry on. "Murder" indeed.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Tradical said:


> Yes, of course: in fact, 90% of all abortions in the United States occur during the first trimester, during almost all of which the organism is correctly known as an "embryo." Most abortions occurring later are due to fetal abnormalities (no, not red hair or the propensity to liberal ideas). But yes, a very dear friend of mine still uses the word "baby" to refer to the anencephalic body she had removed from her uterus by D&E in the third trimester. Luckily she lives on the west coast of the United States, had the procedure, it saved her life, and she was able to get pregnant again (since the procedure was performed by a qualified physician rather than by an illegal amateur in a hotel room). I'm sure the husband of the Hindi woman who had the bad luck to miscarry in Ireland and was refused a lifesaving D&E a few years ago wishes they'd been somewhere like California, where the rights of fully grown women do indeed trump the rights of blastomeres and fertilized eggs: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman But carry on. "Murder" indeed.


And the overwhelming majority - probably north of 90% - of abortions have absolutely nothing to do with the life of the mother...


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Is Steinem's position that abortion is good because of medical benefit in rare cases? Or is it something much more vile, like murder for convenience and affluence, because mother nature stepped in to end that feminist free love notion?

*The pro-abortion argument just cannot exist without lies and distraction. * They really, really don't want to discuss when life begins. Or the actual rate or number of medically necessary abortions. Or any facts really, just emotional appeals and talk of power and other empty promises.


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor (Jan 10, 2007)

The Supreme Court of Canada has been lying to and distracting our country since the mid- 1980s then.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

There are many things I dislike about abortion, both religiously and ethically. One of the biggest being that abortion is used as a get out of jail free card for young women who make bad decisions, yet don't want to deal with the consequences. People want to talk about the mothers health, rape, and deformed babies as the reason for abortions like that is the majority. The majority are the irresponsible.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I've never understood the argument for being against abortion except in "rare cases". 

Is the life of a child any less worthy or precious in those "rare" cases? It's either a life or it isn't. 

That's the thing that bothers me about most pro-choice people. They try to cut corners intellectually and morally by coming out against it except in such cases. 

It's an empty appeal to those who value life and believe that life begins at conception. It's a tacit admission that most Americans abhor the notion of being able to snuff out a life willy nilly.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I always find it interesting (unnerving? off-putting?) that the most vocal pro-lifers seem to be men, mainly white men, and mainly graying white men. No shortage of women against abortion and birth control, of course, many of them in Congress. Interesting, though, that the folks leading the charge are gray-haired white men. Who have never been pregnant. Who I bet have never been the primary care provider, let alone who struggled financially or emotionally while doing it.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

immanuelrx said:


> One of the biggest being that abortion is used as a get out of jail free card for young women who make bad decisions, yet don't want to deal with the consequences.


This seems to be the main theme of modern leftism, that one should never be accountable for one's own decisions or actions. The quote that comes to mind of course is James Russell Lowell's ""The ultimate result of protecting fools from their folly is to fill the planet full of fools."
Rather than learning from the past, the so-called new enlightened ones wish to jump off the shoulders of the giant and relapse to barbarity and chaos.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> I always find it interesting (unnerving? off-putting?) that the most vocal pro-lifers seem to be men, mainly white men, and mainly graying white men. No shortage of women against abortion and birth control, of course, many of them in Congress. Interesting, though, that the folks leading the charge are gray-haired white men. Who have never been pregnant. Who I bet have never been the primary care provider, let alone who struggled financially or emotionally while doing it.


I respect the tone of some of your earlier posts (while strongly disagreeing with the content of those in the Interchange, apart from the witticism about coffee, demonstrating a sense of humour that rarely obtains in these threads). But may I suggest that this is a lazy and cheap argument to make - a little like the parallel argument being made elsewhere that any (white) conservative who criticises Obama is a racist.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I've never understood the argument for being against abortion except in "rare cases".
> 
> Is the life of a child any less worthy or precious in those "rare" cases? It's either a life or it isn't.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. I am not going to pretend like it is easy to make the choice between a mother and a child when the mothers is in danger or when the baby won't survive the day after birth. Those are tough choices, but I feel bad for the husband or partner who tries and pressure a wife or partner to birth the child anyways. I don't support abortion, and I would let me wife know my position in the matter, but in those two situations the decision is hers. More so the former than the latter. As far as rape goes, as hard as it is to birth the child of someone who rapes a woman, that is still a child who deserves a chance at life. Are you telling me the mother's emotions are worth more than a life? Rape is horrible and rapists should be dealt with accordingly, but it isn't the child's fault and the child deserves to live his/her life. Again, not easy choices. They are still the minority when it comes to abortion. Wearing a t-shirt like it is something to be proud of, I will never understand. Even if you are pro-choice, you are still ending a life. Nothing to be proud of.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I don't think it's any lazier or cheaper than other comments I've read. And I don't think I should apologize for not offering a robust, fully cited, air tight, or even grammatically correct case in every post.

It is how I see it, though, and I think I was only stating the obvious. All you have to do is turn on the CNN news to see our graying, red-tied, white male Congressional leaders leading the charge on women's health and rights issues.



Balfour said:


> I respect the tone of some of your earlier posts (while strongly disagreeing with the content of those in the Interchange, apart from the witticism about coffee, demonstrating a sense of humour that rarely obtains in these threads). But may I suggest that this is a lazy and cheap argument to make - a little like the parallel argument being made elsewhere that any (white) conservative who criticises Obama is a racist.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

RobertM said:


> I always find it interesting (unnerving? off-putting?) that the most vocal pro-lifers seem to be men, mainly white men, and mainly graying white men. No shortage of women against abortion and birth control, of course, many of them in Congress. Interesting, though, that the folks leading the charge are gray-haired white men. Who have never been pregnant. Who I bet have never been the primary care provider, let alone who struggled financially or emotionally while doing it.


I suppose you have some statistics to back you up or is this just one of those things that those in favor of indiscriminate killing of children tell themselves to salve their conscience.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

The similar observation is that feminists of all kinds, and feminist leaders, pro-abortion advocates etc. are usually the people least at risk of ever having anyone want to have sex with them. Is that a fair observation too? I find that interesting.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Right. Pro-choicers believe in indiscriminate killing of children. Do we want to talk about cheap and lazy?


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

It's a bit misogynistic and sexist, and a bit mean spirited, but I can understand how one, of certain life experience and views, might see it that way.



Tempest said:


> The similar observation is that feminists of all kinds, and feminist leaders, pro-abortion advocates etc. are usually the people least at risk of ever having anyone want to have sex with them. Is that a fair observation too? I find that interesting.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

RobertM said:


> I always find it interesting (unnerving? off-putting?) that the most vocal pro-lifers seem to be men, mainly white men, and mainly graying white men. No shortage of women against abortion and birth control, of course, many of them in Congress. Interesting, though, that the folks leading the charge are gray-haired white men. Who have never been pregnant. Who I bet have never been the primary care provider, let alone who struggled financially or emotionally while doing it.


Man, and all this time i though I was a 34 year old hispanic male. Thanks for setting me straight. You know, when 72 percent of america is white and roughly 50 percent of that is males, you are going to be quite right by saying white males do xyz. Check this out, a majority of people who drink alcohol in meixco are hispanic males. I can do it to.

I don't see how being pregnant allows someone to decide who gets to live and die.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tempest said:


> The similar observation is that feminists of all kinds, and feminist leaders, pro-abortion advocates etc. are usually the people least at risk of ever having anyone want to have sex with them. Is that a fair observation too? I find that interesting.


You don't think Gloria is a MILF?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

RobertM said:


> It's a bit misogynistic and sexist, and a bit mean spirited, but I can understand how one, of certain life experience and views, might see it that way.


I agree! The fellas are just lining up!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

RobertM said:


> It's a bit misogynistic and sexist, and a bit mean spirited, but I can understand how one, of certain life experience and views, might see it that way.


Male feminists are not excluded from this observation.


SG_67 said:


> You don't think Gloria is a MILF?


GILF. I did say usually, and was not strictly saying it as a physical attractiveness thing. The personalities are usually less than pleasant.
NSFW


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Well, you guys certainly offer a good variety of different attacks and arguments against pro-choice, Gloria Steinem, homosexuality (the last surprises me a little, in this day and age), etc., some of them even quite articulate and smart. For better or worse, though, they're not compelling enough to change my mind. Ha ha! 

Seriously, though, as I seem to be the lone voice of liberal insanity here, I'll back out and leave you to bristle among yourselves. For what it's worth, it is heartening to see people, no matter how much I may disagree with them, engaged with real passion in issues that matter and to do so intelligently.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> I don't think it's any lazier or cheaper than other comments I've read. And I don't think I should apologize for not offering a robust, fully cited, air tight, or even grammatically correct case in every post.
> 
> It is how I see it, though, and I think I was only stating the obvious. All you have to do is turn on the CNN news to see our graying, red-tied, white male Congressional leaders leading the charge on women's health and rights issues.


Respecting the tone less now.

'White grey-haired men can't understand the issue' is cheap and intellectually shallow. But again, the pro-abortion lobby engage in some of the most inventive exercises in Newspeak that we have seen since certain regimes in mid-C20th.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

RobertM said:


> Well, you guys certainly offer a good variety of different attacks and arguments against pro-choice, Gloria Steinem, homosexuality (the last surprises me a little, in this day and age), etc., some of them even quite articulate and smart. For better or worse, though, they're not compelling enough to change my mind. Ha ha!
> 
> Seriously, though, as I seem to be the lone voice of liberal insanity here, I'll back out and leave you to bristle among yourselves. For what it's worth, it is heartening to see people, no matter how much I may disagree with them, engaged with real passion in issues that matter and to do so intelligently.


Geez, thanks a lot for ruining my dislike of you. Party pooper. Glad to know you can step away from an argument and not hold a grudge. I hate to admit I am not so fortunate. It must be my generations' need to always be right. Or just mine.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I sincerely hope I didn't come across as disliking anyone here, simply because we disagreed. Some of my best friends are disagreeable.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> I sincerely hope I didn't come across as disliking anyone here, simply because we disagreed. Some of my best friends are disagreeable.


Liking the tone more again (not implying you should care). I fear we will disagree a lot, or possibly all the time, if we spar in the Interchange, but I hope you continue to post.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Thank you, Sir. I can't promise consistency of tone in anything I say or do. My high school trumpet instructor had the same problem with me.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

So... who's taking advantage of the Lands' End Friends and Family 30-percent off sale! 

Kidding! I swear. I'm just kidding!


----------



## nbj08 (Feb 6, 2015)

It seems many of the views expressed in this thread are not the majority.

From what I see, many in this thread support an _absolute_ ban on abortion, even labeling small exceptions (like risk to the mother's life) as "mealy mouthed" or an "empty appeal."

Yes, I understand that these small exceptions do not account for the majority of abortions. And every day I become less likely to support what some here call 'casual' or 'get out of jail free' abortions.

But it at some point, in those circumstances where the mother's health is in jeopardy, their must be a balance of interests: the interests of the living mother to live v. the interests of the unborn child to live.

Surely a great majority agree that in those rare and unfortunate circumstances, the mother's life may reasonably take precedence.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

RobertM said:


> I sincerely hope I didn't come across as disliking anyone here, simply because we disagreed. Some of my best friends are disagreeable.


Not suggesting you dislike anyone here, just admiring your ability to do something I have trouble with. It is very childish to take it personal when people are simply disagreeing with you. It is a trait I struggle with mightily. It is the reason why I try and stay away from the interchange. I get too worked up. Anyways, glad you are apart of AAAC and I will look forward to conversing with you more in the future.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

You know, all the passionate defense of life per se that I see around here is making me rethink my position on many issues. Heck, I'm downright inspired by the resolute insistence that, regardless of circumstance, intention, or likely outcome, any human life at or after the embryo stage must be defended and preserved at all costs (again, irrespective of other consequences) is inspiring. 

I can't wait to read your equally impassioned denunciation of air bombardment (where civilian casualties, including children, account for the vast majority of deaths), capital punishment (hey, the Catholic Church is with you on that one!) or public policies involving limited access to health care or solid nutrition result in premature death in the millions (again, the Church is with you, even if the Council of Bishops is seemingly single-minded in its obsession with zygotes and fetuses).

Incidentally, since so many around here simultaneously venerate tradition and deplore the "recent" "feminist" irresponsibility resulting from sexual license, etc., you might be interested in actually reading some of the voluminous historical material that details how women have chosen to terminate their pregnancies over the past centuries. You Anglophiles will be particularly interested in the explosion of advertising aimed at women in mainstream, popular, late-Victorian periodicals.

Spoiler alert: "Pennyroyal Tea" isn't meant to go with cucumber sandwiches, and patent medicines promising to "relieve female stoppages" aren't talking about the crazy driving habits of those crazy women (amirite?). 

Finally, judging from the tone and content of recent posts, several people here will be surprised to learn the public health statistics: conservative women, pro-life women, pro-choice women, religious women, catholic women, protestant women, rich women, and poor women (when they can get access) have abortions with similar frequency. If you'd like to reduce the frequency with which abortions are performed, you may do so in the ways that many European countries have: making birth control and scientifically sound information both widely and easily available. 

Good day.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Excellent, well said, and thank you.



Tradical said:


> You know, all the passionate defense of life per se that I see around here is making me rethink my position on many issues. Heck, I'm downright inspired by the resolute insistence that, regardless of circumstance, intention, or likely outcome, any human life at or after the embryo stage must be defended and preserved at all costs (again, irrespective of other consequences) is inspiring.
> 
> I can't wait to read your equally impassioned denunciation of air bombardment (where civilian casualties, including children, account for the vast majority of deaths), capital punishment (hey, the Catholic Church is with you on that one!) or public policies involving limited access to health care or solid nutrition result in premature death in the millions (again, the Church is with you, even if the Council of Bishops is seemingly single-minded in its obsession with zygotes and fetuses).
> 
> ...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Abortion is obviously a very tough issue, made even tougher by the historical aspects of women not being treated equally. But if you separate the actual issue out, it becomes much less difficult. At the root of the question is "when does a life become a life?" Some will say that it is a life at conception. Some will say not until the baby leaves the womb. Neither of those is remotely defensible. Science pushes the answer closer and closer to conception though - that simply cannot be denied. Until we can definitely say when life begins, we will be stuck with a solution crafted by mankind - meaning it will not be perfect.

I do have a question for all the pro choice folks though. If, tomorrow, science proved that life did indeed begin at conception - would you want to put abortion doctors and activists on trial for crimes against humanity?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> I do have a question for all the pro choice folks though. If, tomorrow, science proved that life did indeed begin at conception - would you want to put abortion doctors and activists on trial for crimes against humanity?


The science is quite settled actually. Once fertilization is complete and the cellular machinery of life kicks into gear, life begins. One can make moral and/or philosophical arguments against it, but biologically, the embryo is distinct. It's not just a clump of cells like sloughed off epithelial cells.

As for bombing during wartime, I'm afraid that's a red herring. One could on those grounds say that we don't have a right to defend ourselves using lethal force as that would also result in the loss of life.

Care is taken to avoid innocent casualties in time of war but unfortunately it happens. It's not a deliberate and affirmative act as is abortion.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> The science is quite settled actually. Once fertilization is complete and the cellular machinery of life kicks into gear, life begins. One can make moral and/or philosophical arguments against it, but biologically, the embryo is distinct. It's not just a clump of cells like sloughed off epithelial cells.


And this is where things get hard. I think that almost everyone would agree that to consider it a life, it would have to be viable, correct? I am thinking specifically of tubal pregnancies. If life truly starts at conception, then this would still be ending a life - and I just can't get behind that.



> As for bombing during wartime, I'm afraid that's a red herring. One could on those grounds say that we don't have a right to defend ourselves using lethal force as that would also result in the loss of life.
> 
> Care is taken to avoid innocent casualties in time of war but unfortunately it happens. It's not a deliberate and affirmative act as is abortion.


I am not thinking of bombing during wartime as my test case as there is a definite military aim to that and it can be needed - even if it results in civilian casualties.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> I agree! The fellas are just lining up!


I sure it must derive from my life experiences (as intoned in earlier posts), but would you be the one to step up and pick a fight with the gal pictured....for sure, this child of gawd would not be inclined to do so! LOL.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> I sure it must derive from my life experiences (as intoned in earlier posts), but would you be the one to step up and pick a fight with the gal pictured....for sure, this child of gawd would not be inclined to do so! LOL.


She would look a lot better with a Harris Tweed vest and light blue OCBD; with those changes, she might even make an appearance in the "Trad Girlfriend" thread!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> And this is where things get hard. I think that almost everyone would agree that to consider it a life, it would have to be viable, correct? I am thinking specifically of tubal pregnancies. If life truly starts at conception, then this would still be ending a life - and I just can't get behind that.
> 
> I am not thinking of bombing during wartime as my test case as there is a definite military aim to that and it can be needed - even if it results in civilian casualties.


But it is viable. Viability is a relative term. Are you talking about viability outside the womb? At some point yes.

At a certain stage in development it is dependent on the mother for life. Just as we are dependent on the sun, water and food for life. Surely no one is saying we are not viable as our ability to live depends on outside forces and factors.

As a biologically distinct organism, the embryo is different from other collections of cells in the human body.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> But it is viable. Viability is a relative term. Are you talking about viability outside the womb? At some point yes.
> 
> At a certain stage in development it is dependent on the mother for life. Just as we are dependent on the sun, water and food for life. Surely no one is saying we are not viable as our ability to live depends on outside forces and factors.
> 
> As a biologically distinct organism, the embryo is different from other collections of cells in the human body.


What will be the outcome of a tubal pregnancy?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> What will be the outcome of a tubal pregnancy?


Then it will self abort. All things perish if nature is allowed to take its course. 
I'm not arguing against the natural operation of a thing.

A tubal pregnancy is a life nonetheless. A life that will unfortunately end but then we all die. It's a matter of when and not if.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RobertM said:


> I always find it interesting (unnerving? off-putting?) that the most vocal pro-lifers seem to be men, mainly white men, and mainly graying white men. No shortage of women against abortion and birth control, of course, many of them in Congress. Interesting, though, that the folks leading the charge are gray-haired white men. Who have never been pregnant. Who I bet have never been the primary care provider, let alone who struggled financially or emotionally while doing it.


You object to grey haired white men expressing opinions but are comfortable with abortion?


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> Then it will self abort. All things perish if nature is allowed to take its course.
> I'm not arguing against the natural operation of a thing. A tubal pregnancy is a life nonetheless. A life that will unfortunately end but then we all die. It's a matter of when and not if.


I love it when fashion experts opine upon epidemiology, philosophy of science, bioethics, and other intimately related topics. I know facts are in short supply here, but:
*
Ectopic pregnancy is the most common cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester of pregnancy. There are more than 40 deaths per year in the United States. It accounts for about 10% of all pregnancy-related deaths. However, the number of deaths per ectopic pregnancy is decreasing dramatically because of earlier diagnosis and treatment. This death-to-case rate is 4 times higher in non-white women. Because the incidence of ectopic pregnancy is also higher in black Americans, a pregnant black woman is 5 times more likely to die of ectopic pregnancy than a white woman. It causes about 20% of pregnancy-related deaths among black women.

- See more at:

*Someday maybe I'll pay for a passable suit by teaching an Elder Hostel class in Introduction to Sound Reasoning or Introduction to Philosophy of Science, in which case I maybe we'll meet face to face and I'll spend some entertaining time mapping out all the formal and informal logical fallacies that are the distinguishing feature of this thread.

Since we've seen the supposed face of a fringe element of a late-'70s radical feminism, let us all gaze with pride upon the lovely face of mainstream American conservatism (no, not Sarah Palin, who's represents more the intellectual powerhouse wing of American conservatism). On second thought, I can't look again at Donald Trump even in jest. We'll all be seeing a lot more of him.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> You object to grey haired white men expressing opinions but are comfortable with abortion?


Best post of the thread!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Tradical said:


> I love it when fashion experts opine upon epidemiology, philosophy of science, bioethics, and other intimately related topics...


I love it when science(?) professors opine upon history, the U.S. Constitution, proper role of government, Supreme Court decisions, and other intimately related topics (as you did earlier) without knowing anything about those topics...


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> You object to grey haired white men expressing opinions but are comfortable with abortion?


This.



Tiger said:


> Best post of the thread!


This.



Tiger said:


> I love it when science(?) professors opine upon history, the U.S. Constitution, proper role of government, Supreme Court decisions, and other intimately related topics (as you did earlier) without knowing anything about those topics...


And this.

Well said.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The self proclaimed most well educated commentator in this thread has spoken.



Tradical said:


> I love it when fashion experts opine upon epidemiology, philosophy of science, bioethics, and other intimately related topics. I know facts are in short supply here, but:
> *
> Ectopic pregnancy is the most common cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester of pregnancy. There are more than 40 deaths per year in the United States. It accounts for about 10% of all pregnancy-related deaths. However, the number of deaths per ectopic pregnancy is decreasing dramatically because of earlier diagnosis and treatment. This death-to-case rate is 4 times higher in non-white women. Because the incidence of ectopic pregnancy is also higher in black Americans, a pregnant black woman is 5 times more likely to die of ectopic pregnancy than a white woman. It causes about 20% of pregnancy-related deaths among black women.
> 
> ...


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> The self proclaimed most well educated commentator in this thread has spoken.


Quite: The presumption and condescension--speaking to vainglorious arrogance--reminded me for some reason of this:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

And this for the images of Tradical declaiming:


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

No need to set your viagra bottles a rattling, gentlemen, as you seem to have confused me with some other person in your lives who has pointed out uncomfortable facts / non sequiturs. Please review the thread and you'll find that I've professed absolutely nothing about my field(s) of training, level of education, hair (gray or otherwise), men (white or otherwise), my disciplinary or institutional affiliations (other than an aspirationally likely one for next year, which I invoked purely to establish cultural context for fashion advice), or musical theater.

I have so far only established / claimed about myself that I lack an appropriate suit and shoes as well as the ready funds with which to purchase same. Until we meet in a first-year remedial class on logically sound arguments, please enjoy this brief piece on Ye Olden Days before the hippies and the feminists took over: "19th Century Classified Ads for Abortifacients and Contraceptives."


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tradical said:


> I love it when fashion experts opine upon epidemiology, philosophy of science, bioethics, and other intimately related topics. I know facts are in short supply here, but:
> *
> Ectopic pregnancy is the most common cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester of pregnancy. There are more than 40 deaths per year in the United States. It accounts for about 10% of all pregnancy-related deaths. However, the number of deaths per ectopic pregnancy is decreasing dramatically because of earlier diagnosis and treatment. This death-to-case rate is 4 times higher in non-white women. Because the incidence of ectopic pregnancy is also higher in black Americans, a pregnant black woman is 5 times more likely to die of ectopic pregnancy than a white woman. It causes about 20% of pregnancy-related deaths among black women.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure which fashion expert you're referring to; surely not I.

"I love it" when self proclaimed intellectuals link to websites without considering the fullness of the argument or topic at hand.

A ectopic pregnancy, particularly a tubal pregnancy, is non-viable. It will die. The question is whether it will take the mother's life with.

In the event that the pregnancy does not self terminate, the embryo must be removed. This is different from an abortion as we are discussing.

I doubt Gloria's "I had an abortion" t-shirt had the subtitle of "because I had a tubal pregnancy".

Those favoring abortion on demand love to bring up the ectopic pregnancy issue and use that as a springboard to justifying all abortions. The desire for an abortion as a form of birth control vs. an abortion performed on a non-viable embryo in order to preserve the mother's life are completely different.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Tradical said:


> No need to set your viagra bottles a rattling, gentlemen, as you seem to have confused me with some other person in your lives who has pointed out uncomfortable facts / non sequiturs. Please review the thread and you'll find that I've professed absolutely nothing about my field(s) of training, level of education, hair (gray or otherwise), men (white or otherwise), my disciplinary or institutional affiliations (other than an aspirationally likely one for next year, which I invoked purely to establish cultural context for fashion advice), or musical theater.
> 
> I have so far only established / claimed about myself that I lack an appropriate suit and shoes as well as the ready funds with which to purchase same. Until we meet in a first-year remedial class on logically sound arguments, please enjoy this brief piece on Ye Olden Days before the hippies and the feminists took over: "19th Century Classified Ads for Abortifacients and Contraceptives."


postscript: You'll note that my sarcastic invocation of fashion experts opining upon scientific matters was immediately followed by a reliably sourced statement of fact that directly repudiated the claim of the immediate poster. Your own sarcastic claims are limited to ad hominem attacks. Pentheos will, I'm sure, gladly translate that last term for you.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Tradical said:


> postscript: You'll note that my sarcastic invocation of fashion experts opining upon scientific matters was immediately followed by a reliably sourced statement of fact that directly repudiated the claim of the immediate poster. Your own sarcastic claims are limited *to ad hominem attacks. Pentheos will, I'm sure, gladly translate that last term for you*.


And thereby (by that to which has been given emphasis) you indulge in the ad hominem yourself, yet in a passive-aggressive and disingenuous way. There is little less attractive than a self-proclaimed over-educated liberal blowhard. And yes, that is ad hominem. :devil:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tradical said:


> postscript: You'll note that my sarcastic invocation of fashion experts opining upon scientific matters was immediately followed by a reliably sourced statement of fact that directly repudiated the claim of the immediate poster. Your own sarcastic claims are limited to ad hominem attacks. Pentheos will, I'm sure, gladly translate that last term for you.


I'm not sure what claim you were repudiating.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

No, I don't object at all, to anyone, gray-haired, male, female, blonde, brunette, or whatever expressing opinions. I said it was interesting to me that the people leading the charge against abortion (mainly the lawmakers) are such.

Whole different point.



Shaver said:


> You object to grey haired white men expressing opinions but are comfortable with abortion?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RobertM said:


> No, I don't object at all, to anyone, gray-haired, male, female, blonde, brunette, or whatever expressing opinions. I said it was interesting to me that the people leading the charge against abortion (mainly the lawmakers) are such.
> 
> Whole different point.


If that was indeed your intended sentiment then you may well be obliged to accept that you were unable to adequately convey this position.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I think you might want to accept that you are adept at misreading or willfully misrepresenting someone's intentions to serve your purposes.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> I always find it interesting *(unnerving? off-putting?)* that the most vocal pro-lifers seem to be men, mainly white men, and mainly graying white men. No shortage of women against abortion and birth control, of course, many of them in Congress. Interesting, though, that the folks leading the charge are gray-haired white men. Who have never been pregnant. Who I bet have never been the primary care provider, let alone who struggled financially or emotionally while doing it.





RobertM said:


> No, I don't object at all, to anyone, gray-haired, male, female, blonde, brunette, or whatever expressing opinions. I said it was interesting to me that the people leading the charge against abortion (mainly the lawmakers) are such.
> 
> Whole different point.


An unconvincing attempt at revisionism of your previous post, which clearly insinuated much more.

Again, I do find some of the comments you make here refreshing in tone if not sentiment. But please don't equivocate. Your earlier post was clearly implying a lack of legitimacy of those who oppose abortion by what you assume and ascribe to be their demographics. It was not something you found 'interesting' in the sense of something that piqued your intellectual curiosity or provoked in you the need for further reflection; it was (by virtue of what has been given emphasis in your original post) something that you wished to undermine or cast aspersions upon.

If I were dewy-eyed, I'd like to write this off. But so many of the pro-abortion camp just like to twist and distort language that I am really struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt on what you are insinuating here, despite the good humour you have displayed (rarely) in the Interchange.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Balfour said:


> And thereby (by that to which has been given emphasis) you indulge in the ad hominem yourself, yet in a passive-aggressive and disingenuous way. There is little less attractive than a self-proclaimed over-educated liberal blowhard. And yes, that is ad hominem. :devil:


Among other things about myself I have no identified -- but have been imputed to me here -- are my political affiliations. One of the nice things about logic is that it depends not at all upon the status or identity of those making an argument: it stands and falls on its own.

While it may gratify you to dismiss the facts and logic that I have posted here as "liberal," you might be interested in this resolutely, distinctively, famously non-liberal position articulated by the Ayn Rand Institute: "Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life." 

Pointing out that the Supreme Court has ruled in a particular way for more than forty years is not me claiming to be a constitutional scholar, it's pointing out a fact in the world. Pointing out that women die (or are rendered infertile, etc.) from tubal pregnancies doesn't translate into a claim about being an obstetrician. And no, posting this argument here doesn't entail anything about me at all: it merely establishes that the current right of American women to choose when to reproduce the species is endorsed by people on a wide range on the political spectrum.



> That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual. ("Independent" does not mean self-supporting - a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."



Argue with this person, dismiss this person, do whatever you wish, but in this case you may not simply shout "libtard!" before returning to your musical theater and admiring photographs of other gentlemen and their outfits. In any case, you may now return to your regularly scheduled afternoon shaking your Bay-Rum-scented walking sticks at modernity.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

And please forgive the typo in the previous post: I meant "libtrad." I look forward to having my sartorial mistakes corrected in other, less fraught, fora.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Tradical said:


> ...
> Argue with this person, dismiss this person, do whatever you wish, but in this case you may not simply shout "libtard!" before returning to your musical theater and admiring photographs of other gentlemen and their outfits. In any case, you may now return to your regularly scheduled afternoon shaking your Bay-Rum-scented walking sticks at modernity.


And again it is so amusing that covered by the pretence of an intellectual response, you simply resort to the ad homimen attacks you previously condemned. Perhaps the only thing beneath the contempt for the self-proclaimed over-educated liberal blowhard is the same that is a hypocrite. But continue to disclaim 'judicially' on the views of those in this thread who oppose a political and moral stance that you advocate if you think this gives more veneer to the sin that you advocate.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Semantic hairsplitting, me thinks. But that's okay. Is the expectation that I gleefully maintain good humor throughout the fray? 



Balfour said:


> An unconvincing attempt at revisionism of your previous post, which clearly insinuated much more.
> 
> Again, I do find some of the comments you make here refreshing in tone if not sentiment. But please don't equivocate. Your earlier post was clearly implying a lack of legitimacy of those who oppose abortion by what you assume and ascribe to be their demographics. It was not something you found 'interesting' in the sense of something that piqued your intellectual curiosity or provoked in you the need for further reflection; it was (by virtue of what has been given emphasis in your original post) something that you wished to undermine or cast aspersions upon.
> 
> If I were dewy-eyed, I'd like to write this off. But so many of the pro-abortion camp just like to twist and distort language that I am really struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt on what you are insinuating here, despite the good humour you have displayed (rarely) in the Interchange.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> Semantic hairsplitting, me thinks. But that's okay. Is the expectation that I gleefully maintain good humor throughout the fray?


Nah. My previous post made it clear it was not hairsplitting.

But I hope civility between us (in the sense I am encouraged to hope for by your postings rather than meant as a condescending observation) in the face of profound disagreement may be maintained between us.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Ayn Rand? :fool:



Tradical said:


> Among other things about myself I have no identified -- but have been imputed to me here -- are my political affiliations. One of the nice things about logic is that it depends not at all upon the status or identity of those making an argument: it stands and falls on its own.
> 
> While it may gratify you to dismiss the facts and logic that I have posted here as "liberal," you might be interested in this resolutely, distinctively, famously non-liberal position articulated by the Ayn Rand Institute: "Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life."
> 
> ...


----------



## nbj08 (Feb 6, 2015)

It's quite unfortunate to see a professor of philosophy, who exalts the virtue of logic, commit hasty generalizations, ironically an informal fallacy. 

Not all members are older, and some even have a background in philosophy. 

Even in logic, there is room for reasonable disagreement.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Okay. Well, I should sign off. My copies of The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and The Nation just arrived.



Balfour said:


> Nah. My previous post made it clear it was not hairsplitting.
> 
> But I hope civility between us (in the sense I am encouraged to hope for by your postings rather than meant as a condescending observation) in the face of profound disagreement may be maintained between us.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Shaver said:


> Ayn Rand? :fool:


On this, dear Shaver, we agree completely (see my earlier judgement on her merits)! But be careful: you're dangerously close to mocking one of the powerhouse (secular) saints of American conservatism. The quote merely establishes that arguments in favor of / support for reproductive rights are not -- bya long shot -- an exclusive provenance of "liberals."


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> Okay. Well, I should sign off. My copies of The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and The Nation just arrived.


:icon_pale::fool:

...

:beer:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Tradical said:


> ... The quote merely establishes that arguments in favor of / support for reproductive rights are not -- bya long shot -- an exclusive provenance of "liberals."


Spout Ayn Rand nonsense as much as you wish, or pray at the Altar of St Friedman of Chicago, the one point on which I agree with you is that this is not a 'secular left' versus 'secular right' issue. But, hey, I know on which side most of the libtards, sorry, 'libtrads', sorry, liberals would be on.

hristianconnection.com


*10 Reasons Why Abortion is Evil & Not a "Pro-Choice"*


When will abortion stop?
*Since the legalization of abortion in 1973*, over 57 million unborn children have been killed, more than the entire population of Spain. That's 155 babies per hour. About 1 every 24 seconds.

By the time you finish reading this article, 4 or 5 more innocent lives will be lost. God's plan for them will be ruined forever.

Can we remain indifferent to such immense human slaughter? NO. So please read the top 10 reasons why abortion is wrong and must be opposed:

*1. Abortion Offends God*

Abortion is never a mere personal choice but a grave offense against God and His creation. The anti-abortion struggle has always been a religious battle and foremost in its ranks have been Catholics across the country. This is because Church teaching on abortion is clear and unequivocal: Abortion is murder. There are no exceptions allowed, no compromises possible.
Click "like" for the UNBORN! 



*2. The Unnoticed War*

The continuing war on terror has lead to a renewed national consciousness of the high price of war, and, for many, a heightened desire for peace. Yet, despite all this concern, the most horrible war of all has gone all but unnoticed. This is a war going on within our own borders, and it has claimed 57 million American lives in the last 43 years.

This scourge is as horrible as anything terrorists can fathom, because it strikes at the very core of humanity and our country: the family. By destroying the most basic human bond of all-that between mother and child-abortion dissolves the precious glue that binds our nation together.

While mother and child are the first victims, there is not a single element of society that is not affected by abortion. Mother, child, father, husband, aunt, uncle, friend, sibling and grandparent alike suffer the scars of the abortionist's scalpel. Peace abroad is meaningless without peace at home.

*3. Life starts at the moment of conception*

This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare a beginning of life at any point after the fusing of a wife's egg and a husband's contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence - which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen.1

*4. Mankind must protect life whenever possible*

The first and foremost instinct of humans is preservation of life. This begins with self-preservation, and extends to all humanity through domestic bonds and realization of a like nature. "Pregnancy termination" stops the beating heart of a growing human being and is in direct contradiction to this most basic premise of human nature. It forsakes natural law, and has left America as a country unable to repopulate itself without the aid of mass immigration.

*5. Abortion is unsafe*

Compared with other medical procedures, the abortion industry is largely unregulated. Although there are no exact statistics for the number of women who die from botched procedures, LifeDynamics.com compiled a list of 347 women killed by legal abortions since 1973.2 Furthermore, the National Cancer Institute commissioned a study lead by Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center which found a link between abortion and cancer: "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reports: "28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters." 3

*6. A biogenetic Tower of Babel*

In a cynical but logical progression, the culture of death is now bent on engendering human life so as to destroy it. Its new frontier is embryonic stem-cell and human cloning research. In the name of science and health, human life is destroyed at its very inception and "limited" cloning is used to produce usable cells that can be manipulated and harvested to aid the living. In short, the remaining ethical barriers that preserve human dignity and God's rights in Creation are steadily coming down. The biotech revolution has as its avowed goal not just curing disease but the construction of a "brave new world" of genetic engineering, changing the very makeup and design of man himself. We cannot permit the completion of this challenge to God, a new Tower of Babel, which will be like another Pandora's box, unleashing untold ethical and moral havoc on our nation.

*7. Breaking the abortion cycle*

Abortion is a sin that perpetuates evil. The abortion mentality destroys the family by making it more difficult for new Americans who survive beyond the womb to find the family welded together by the indissoluble bond of marriage solely between a man and a woman. Children need families that will nurture them, guard their innocence and develop their personalities. In particular, all children must find within their homes the Faith that enables them to know, love and serve God in this world and be happy with Him forever in the next. As long as the traditional family remains in crisis, we will never sever the power lines that supply the abortion mills. As long as the Faith remains dead in souls, we will never wipe out the moral rot of sexual immorality, which is the contaminated soil where the abortion movement grows and flourishes.

*8. Roe v. Wade: 43 Years of Lies*

The 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous _Roe v. Wade_ decision legalizing abortion-on-demand calls to mind the biggest pack of lies ever set in motion -- lies that have cost the lives of more than 57 million innocent babies cruelly torn from their mothers' wombs. How can such slaughter, numerically on par with Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, be tolerated by the present United States of America, a republic purportedly based on moral values and human rights?

*9. Addressing an abortionist*

You were once an enchanting child, as all babies are. Today you are an abortionist, a killer of babies. Do you not regret your wicked deeds? Do you not see the innocent blood of our children that stains your hands and cries out to God? Have you no shame as did our first parents when they sinned against God? Why do you not turn to Him today, seek His forgiveness and His strength never again to murder the innocent? Would you not rather bring children into the world than destroy them? Children you could raise with respect for life to take the place of those you robbed from God?

*10. The slippery slope*

Yesterday it was contraception. Today it's abortion and same-sex "marriage." Will it be widespread euthanasia tomorrow? Then what...? Once abortion is universally accepted, what logical arguments will stop euthanasia and other forms of murder and brutality?


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Philosophically, I can't sustain for long a mind for politics. I keep going back to the Henry Miller quote about how men who are overly concerned about world affairs probably don't have affairs of their own to be concerned about, or something to the effect. Paraphrasing, of course. And I realize this is an entirely other tangent. I blame the spring-like day, a beautiful woman (my dear wife), and a pint of Hopslam. Cheers!


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Ah. Here it is. I love it. Caveat: I am not a huge Miller fan though I devoured the two famous books my college freshman year. Probably the only time one should give them such attention:

"The man who is forever disturbed about the condition of humanity either has no problems of his own or has refused to face them." 
― Henry Miller, Sexus


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

nbj08 said:


> It's quite unfortunate to see a professor of philosophy, who exalts the virtue of logic, commit hasty generalizations, ironically an informal fallacy.


It's worse than in informal fallacy, I fear (though I'm pleased to have yet another discipline imputed to my internet resume -- if only all these departments would put me on the payroll, I'd afford a decent suit): just gratuitous abuse in honor of the general tenor around here. And hey, if informal fallacies disappeared I'm pretty sure the internet would suffer an immediate and violent vacuum implosion.

Mmmmmmm. Hopslam.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

It's a rare find. Believe it or not, they keep it under the counter in these parts for people "with a special interest." For the demand. I felt like a character from a Burroughs novel asking for it last week!



Tradical said:


> It's worse than in informal fallacy, I fear (though I'm pleased to have yet another discipline imputed to my internet resume -- if only all these departments would put me on the payroll, I'd afford a decent suit): just gratuitous abuse in honor of the general tenor around here. And hey, if informal fallacies disappeared I'm pretty sure the internet would suffer an immediate and violent vacuum implosion.
> 
> Mmmmmmm. Hopslam.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

RobertM said:


> It's a rare find. Believe it or not, they keep it under the counter in these parts for people "with a special interest." For the demand. I felt like a character from a Burroughs novel asking for it last week!


If you think it's rare there, head west a few thousand miles. You'd have better luck finding a Klan member at a Bernie Sanders rally. What I wouldn't give for a Two-Hearted right about now (let alone an Edmund Fitzgerald Porter)


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> ...
> "The man who is forever disturbed about the condition of humanity either has no problems of his own or has refused to face them."
> ― Henry Miller, Sexus


It's a cute observation, but ultimately unconvincing.

If it is intended to refute views put forward by one side of the debate in this thread, then it is simply specious (as views have been put forward, with vigour, on both sides of the debate that show a concern for issues touching on the condition of humanity).

It is again criticism in the vein of 'those who make comments about this should be dismissed because of, depending on the context--

(a) age and sex (i.e. middle aged men cannot comment on abortion because they are sexist / don't have wombs),

(b) race (i.e. white individuals cannot criticise Obama, because they are racist), or

(c) they even comment on an issue at all (i.e. because they are 'disturbed' by the condition of humanity, and are therefore without problems or have failed to confront problems)'.

A further cutesy expression I love to hate in the bullsh$t bingo that plays out in these threads is 'first world problem'. I'm surprised that obnoxious little bon mot has not yet made an appearance.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Thanks for the commentary, Balfour. You've given me something to think about, certainly. I do think you're overthinking it a bit, and I wonder if calling a quote I like "cutesy" isn't more than a little dismissive. (It's not a word--cutesy--that really tells me much in terms of a critique.)

For me, it's almost the equivalent of "Be the change you want to see" (a quote that frankly I loathe for its all too apparent cutesyness). In other words, change might come more by personal example than through battling the issues of the day with your ideological foes. Is one's own house in order, etc.?

As well, I think what Miller intended was that our experience is tied to perception, and through imagination, we can make meaning of our lives in spite of the condition we find the world in. It's a way of exerting control in spite of societal and political forces, the imaginative "I" thumbing its nose at the coercive "other," the ultimate power of the creative mind. A kind of artist's statement, really. 

I don't know. I always think of this quote when I see our extremist politicians becoming red-faced over some hot-button topic, and I can't help but think, "Jeeze, get a life. Who are you to tell me what to do and think, etc."


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> ... "*Be the change you want to see*" (a quote that frankly I loathe for its all too apparent cutesyness). ...


Ladies and gentleman, we have a WINNNNEERRRR!!









Seriously, for someone who has views so at variance to mine, I like your posts and the humour and moderation you maintain in putting forward your view. I need to head off now, but I will seek to reply properly later.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

You've taken that out of context, of course. You'll note I said I don't like this entirely inelegant new-age quote either. It was a shorthand way of describing one way of thinking about the Henry Miller quote, although the Miller quote goes beyond and deeper than that. But as you wish.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM said:


> You've taken that out of context, of course. You'll note I said I don't like it either. It was a shorthand way of describing one way of thinking about the quote. But as you wish.


Just breaking your balls, old boy. (And I left in my quote the point you made about not liking it either.)

As I say, will respond properly later, as your post was thoughtful and deserves a thoughtful response.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I wish to clarify too that the Miller quote/sentiment applies across the spectrum. I don't mean to single out one side or the other. I have liberal and conservative friends who are guilty of the obsessiveness over issues at the cost of ignoring/disregarding their own issues/lives.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

RobertM said:


> Ah. Here it is. I love it. Caveat: I am not a huge Miller fan though I devoured the two famous books my college freshman year. Probably the only time one should give them such attention:
> 
> "The man who is forever disturbed about the condition of humanity either has no problems of his own or has refused to face them."
> ― Henry Miller, Sexus


How can you reconcile that with social welfare, universal healthcare, affirmative action, or just about every liberal policy that there is?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RobertM: First of all, let me reiterate my profound disagreement with the views you've put forward but my qualified respect and admiration for the way in which you approach debate. It introduces a refreshing civility into the Interchange that is rarely seen.



RobertM said:


> Thanks for the commentary, Balfour. You've given me something to think about, certainly. I do think you're overthinking it a bit, and I wonder if calling a quote I like "cutesy" isn't more than a little dismissive. (It's not a word--cutesy--that really tells me much in terms of a critique.)


I don't understand what you mean by the suggestion that my response was 'overthinking it'. Clearly you thought Miller was saying something profound given your previous reference to the quote (in two posts) and, in the post that this post responds to, the explication of what he was trying to say (in your view) in that quote. Why is a response that challenges the validity or gravity of that sentiment 'overthinking it'?

Cutesy was indeed intended to be dismissive. I do not find the sentiment conveyed in the quote to be compelling. It is something that sounds good but on actual examination breaks down. (I take at face value your subsequent statement that you were not using this as a rebuttal to a particular side of this argument.)



RobertM said:


> For me, it's almost the equivalent of "Be the change you want to see" (a quote that frankly I loathe for its all too apparent cutesyness). In other words, change might come more by personal example than through battling the issues of the day with your ideological foes. Is one's own house in order, etc.?


I have some sympathy for what you're saying here: It is easy to rail against things with invective. There are lots of blowhard politicians who indulge in the worst form of dog-whistle politics. There are also people who put far too much stock in 'isms' rather than simply trying to love their neighbour and lead a good life (and if you will permit me, also love the Lord). Humility and not seeking to cast the first stone are admirable qualities.

But I remain of my view that the quote ultimately plays the man rather than the ball - its premiss is that to be concerned about issues in public affairs suggests either a lack of legitimacy (someone has no problems so how are they placed to comment on problems that affect others) or some foible (a displacement of personal problems).



RobertM said:


> I don't know. I always think of this quote when I see our extremist politicians becoming red-faced over some hot-button topic, and I can't help but think, "Jeeze, get a life. Who are you to tell me what to do and think, etc."


Whatever you may think of certain politicians, I do not understand the criticism that may be implied about those who care about public affairs.

Unless you favour an extreme form of libertarianism or complete apathy, there will be political and social issues about which you care and would take great exception to should they be attacked in political debate.

As you've shown in your posts in this thread, you are far from immune to this yourself (e.g. "I don't eat at Chick Fil A anymore after their Christian right-wing politics came to light, but if our country were not so divided ideologically, I might not have made that decision." and in clapping on the sidelines of Tradical's posts, which do not strike the reasonable tone your posts do but are puffed up by assumed intellectual superiority and disclaim 'judicially' on those who are opposed to abortion).


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

I'm pretty apolitical, generally speaking, i.e., political and social issues, for the most part, don't engage my interest much, although, when I do participate, I generally fall on the left side of things, although I'm not a very impassioned leftist. Even, I would say, almost apathetic. In the end, I don't care much one way or the other. My imagination is much more fired by cultural things, art, music, literature, film, etc. Oh, and drink. (I don't assume any intellectual superiority, by the way, in this claim. It's just the way I am, where my interests are.)


----------



## CptSlow (Aug 7, 2015)

This thread has done it for me. If you see this, mods, please remove me as a member.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CptSlow said:


> This thread has done it for me. If you see this, mods, please remove me as a member.


My curiosity is faintly aroused. With the possible exception of certain ham fisted attempts to provoke via ageism this has been a reasonably good natured exchange, most especially considering the divisive subject matter.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

CptSlow said:


> This thread has done it for me. If you see this, mods, please remove me as a member.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Knowing the marketing and advertising industries as I do, I am confident that Land's End would respond in ONE way if they saw this 148 post thread:

An exclamation of "Yeah!" punctuated with an enthusiastic fist pump.

DH


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ and they can ride that fist pump right into obscurity. 

All politics aside, LE is a dying brand with a shrinking customer base and a poor path ahead.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CptSlow said:


> This thread has done it for me. If you see this, mods, please remove me as a member.


And you are who now?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm very late to this party, and I don't particularly care to hang around, but I did want to share this.

One of the single best contributions to the abortion debate I know was the work of Andrew Sullivan, who used his now-defunct-blog to solicit personal experiences with abortion. I think the bottom line he ended up adopting was that the choice is profoundly personal and those really should be left just that: a choice. He of course is not concerned with people who contemplate abortion for convenience sake, something I find and most find absolutely unconscionable.

Sullivan's a serious Catholic whose default position was to be staunchly against abortion. I'm sorry he stopped blogging. I've learned a lot from him. (Balfour, I recommend his book on writings on conservatism...he regards himself as such, although he has little patience for many of its more recent incarnations).
Here's a taste of what came up on his Blog about abortion:

https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/threads/its-so-personal/#latest

Below is an op-ed is in a similar vein, something I read recently. The bottom line for me is that I don't think it's my right to deny women the choice, at least not in the circumstances alluded to here:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ The whole debate really is moot. The Supreme Court has already ruled and unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

The pro life movement can keep alive it's wet dream of getting a SCOTUS engineered for just that purpose but good luck. We should continue to speak out on it but I think the sooner certain elements of my party moves away from this issue as a matter of public policy, the better. It's not going to amount to anything much like attempts at curbing 2nd Amendment rights will go nowhere. 

It certainly is a matter of choice. It does not, however, absolve the decision maker from her moral obligation. It's still the taking of an innocent life whether that life happens to reside temporarily in your body or outside of it.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ The whole debate really is moot. The Supreme Court has already ruled and unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade.
> 
> The pro life movement can keep alive it's wet dream of getting a SCOTUS engineered for just that purpose but good luck. We should continue to speak out on it but I think the sooner certain elements of my party moves away from this issue as a matter of public policy, the better. It's not going to amount to anything much like attempts at curbing 2nd Amendment rights will go nowhere.
> 
> It certainly is a matter of choice. It does not, however, absolve the decision maker from her moral obligation. It's still the taking of an innocent life whether that life happens to reside temporarily in your body or outside of it.


I've been agreeing with a lot of posts of late, and this is one of them. I know two people who've had abortions in circumstances such as those discussed in the articles I linked to, and I can testify to the fact that the decisions were extraordinarily painful, as they were well aware of their obligations and what they were doing. One person, I think, regretted it, but I'm not sure and won't ask. That said, i also know someone who had an abortion because, well, she got knocked up at an inconvenient time. I have no words.

RE; your comments on SCOTUS, I recently had a long conversation with a very serious Catholic who told me of his desire to get past abortion as the end-all-be-all defining issue for his politics. He had other concerns and other priorities and would rather not be committed to any particular litmus test. In his case, I think he was of the old leftish organized labor, immigrant kind of Catholic who didn't like conservative policies and thought the abortion issue was to blame for pushing him and others toward candidates he otherwise would have opposed. He said he wasn't alone. I've also heard this said about some evangelicals. The flip side is that apparently some Evangelicals are making the same argument to explain their support for Trump. Now that gay marriage is the law of the land, they argue, they've given up on thinking they need a Christian in the WH because they've already lost that battle. So they want a guy they think will push for other things they want. I shudder to think what that might be (is deporting Mexicans "Christian"?)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I've never understood the fetish for having a Christian in office. Of course all of our presidents have been Christian, I suppose, but having the RIGHT KIND of Christian. 

It's not as though all of a sudden the constitution will be suspended and fundamentalism become the law of the land.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> ^ The whole debate really is moot. The Supreme Court has already ruled and unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade.


True, SCOTUS isn't going to overturn Roe, but anti-choice groups have been doing successful end-runs around Roe and Casey for decades and steadily rendered Roe pragmatically moot for many poorer women, especially in southern states. The plot will thicken considerably on Wednesday, when oral arguments begin in _Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt:

_


> *Issue*: (1) Whether, when applying the "undue burden" standard of _Planned Parenthood v. Casey__, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government's interest in promoting health; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State's interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest._


UPDATED: With Scalia gone, things got a lot more interesting, and the effects -- whichever way Kennedy rules -- will be profound.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Tradical;1768930Whether you think God called Scalia home specifically before he could weigh in said:


> , or whether you were just reminded that smoking and salsicca fresca is bad for your heart, things got a lot more interesting, and the effects -- whichever way Kennedy rules -- will be profound.


Good grief. Is there no vile, low, vulgar abuse in which you will not indulge? :icon_pale:


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Honestly, this wasn't intentionally abusive (though perhaps my regrettable tone in prior posts made such an interpretation inevitable). Merely a dispassionate acknowledgement of the most gigantically influential -- and unexpected -- development in this case. I'll try to update it to remove the offending paragraph.

UPDATE: Offending rhetoric removed. A tad ironic, it should be said, for anyone who has read the less, ahem, restrained rhetoric of the late Justice's legal opinions.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Leave someone to their own devices long enough and their true light comes forth eventually.


----------



## RobertM (Feb 22, 2016)

Restraint and Justice Scalia are hardly words that go together, but then I guess nothing says a U.S. Supreme Court justice must exercise restraint.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

RobertM said:


> *Restraint and Justice Scalia are hardly words that go together,* but then I guess nothing says a U.S. Supreme Court justice must exercise restraint.


You and the late Justice were intimate friends? I'm not sure how you can know this.

Was he unrestrained? What constitutes restraint?


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> You and the late Justice were intimate friends? I'm not sure how you can know this. Was he unrestrained? What constitutes restraint?


Setting aside his legal activism, he was a public figure for decades, notorious for his sarcasm (bitterly cruel if you hated his opinions, witheringly apt if you loved them) and -- to anyone who followed the court or the debunking of the immediate conspiracy theories surrounding his death -- lack of restraint around use of smoking tobacco and food (hence the years and years of obesity, including what would constitute morbid obesity, and consequent heart failure).

If a mild factual observation about the publicly acknowledged cause of peaceful death of an elderly person gives you the vapors, I am almost positive the internet is the wrong place for you.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

And finally, before one attempts again to leave this conversation, I must observe: for a group of people who lament the inability of whiny liberals to buck up and take a joke, stop being perpetually offended, etc., you certainly are a fragile bunch. Good day, sirs. I SAID GOOD DAY.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

For those that think that the abortion issue won't ever be changed, I say just wait a few years for the science to force that change. At the time of Roe, a premie of a month or so was not very likely to survive. My younger son is 9 and was 2 months premie and has no lingering issues. And there were babies far earlier and smaller than him in the NICU that survived and are fine.

Abortions are already illegal in the 3rd trimester in all but the most extreme cases and science will only keep pushing that back closer to conception.

Additionally, as more premies survive, more people will have experience with them and a more personal attachment to the issue.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> For those that think that the abortion issue won't ever be changed, I say just wait a few years for the science to force that change. At the time of Roe, a premie of a month or so was not very likely to survive. My younger son is 9 and was 2 months premie and has no lingering issues. And there were babies far earlier and smaller than him in the NICU that survived and are fine.
> 
> Abortions are already illegal in the 3rd trimester in all but the most extreme cases and science will only keep pushing that back closer to conception.
> 
> Additionally, as more premies survive, more people will have experience with them and a more personal attachment to the issue.


You might be right.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tradical said:


> Setting aside his legal activism, he was a public figure for decades, notorious for his sarcasm (bitterly cruel if you hated his opinions, witheringly apt if you loved them) and -- to anyone who followed the court or the debunking of the immediate conspiracy theories surrounding his death -- lack of restraint around use of smoking tobacco and food (hence the years and years of obesity, including what would constitute morbid obesity, and consequent heart failure).
> 
> If a mild factual observation about the publicly acknowledged cause of peaceful death of an elderly person gives you the vapors, I am almost positive the internet is the wrong place for you.


I realize you've already ridden off into the sunset with a hearty Hi Ho Silver but are we now reduced to critiquing his diet and other personal habits? The poor man has passed, let him rest in peace.

As for being an activist, how so? I fully admit that activism in a judge is when he/she rules in a manner that the observer distress with but in all his righting a and opinions, he always referred back to the original text of the constitution.

He was an activist in that he wanted to preserve them original intent and meaning of the constitution, but to suggest that he set out to deliberately subvert the country and make it a less fair place, as Mr. Toobin suggests, is ridiculous.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tradical said:


> And finally, before one attempts again to leave this conversation, I must observe: for a group of people who lament the inability of whiny liberals to buck up and take a joke, stop being perpetually offended, etc., you certainly are a fragile bunch. Good day, sirs. I SAID GOOD DAY.


Speak up, old boy, for I have become rather hard of hearing in my senectitude, doncha know?


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Tiger said:


> And the overwhelming majority - probably north of 90% - of abortions have absolutely nothing to do with the life of the mother...


I beg to differ. 100% of pregnancies and abortions have to do with the life of the mother. 0.00 % have to do with you or me; that's the heart of the abortion debate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> I beg to differ. 100% of pregnancies and abortions have to do with the life of the mother. 0.00 % have to do with you or me; that's the heart of the abortion debate.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Good grief. The only thing that can be said of your post is that it does not shy away from the issue or equivocate. But, simply, good grief.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> I beg to differ. 100% of pregnancies and abortions have to do with the life of the mother. 0.00 % have to do with you or me; that's the heart of the abortion debate.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Setting aside your glib marginalisation of the father, are we to understand your position as being one in which each individual is permitted to behave exactly as they see fit without fear of disapprobation let alone consequence?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Setting aside your glib marginalisation of the father, are we to understand your position as being one in which each individual is permitted to behave exactly as they see fit without fear of disapprobation let alone consequence?


Well there is always that picture in the basement so everything should be fine.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I find scalia's originalism ridiculous. Ludicrous, even. And the Citizens United ruling was the worst thing for American Democracy since Dred Scott.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> I find scalia's originalism ridiculous. Ludicrous, even. And the Citizens United ruling was the worst thing for American Democracy since Dred Scott.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Since Dred Scott? Yeah I agree, I liked the old days when only the labor unions could contribute unrestricted money to a political party.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Since Dred Scott? Yeah I agree, I liked the old days when only the labor unions could contribute unrestricted money to a political party.


So if you think those days were bad, perhaps you might agree that Citizens was a step in the wrong direction? The idea should be to limit any organizations contributions, rather than widen greatly the scope of those that can.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> I'm very late to this party, and I don't particularly care to hang around, but I did want to share this.
> 
> One of the single best contributions to the abortion debate I know was the work of Andrew Sullivan, who used his now-defunct-blog to solicit personal experiences with abortion. *I think the bottom line he ended up adopting was that the choice is profoundly personal and those really should be left just that: a choice.* He of course is not concerned with people who contemplate abortion for convenience sake, something I find and most find absolutely unconscionable.
> 
> ...


I wonder, were it given the opportunity, what the profoundly personal choice of the foetus might be?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I wonder, were it given the opportunity, what the profoundly personal choice of the foetus might be?


It's a really good point. Of course, some fetuses have no brains, or face a short and painful life. I don't know. I'm just really glad my wife and I never had to face such a decision.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Good grief. The only thing that can be said of your post is that it does not shy away from the issue or equivocate. But, simply, good grief.


How does a woman having an abortion impact you? I would never encourage anyone to have one. But a woman I don't even know having an abortion really doesn't have an impact on me so it's none of my business what they do. That's between the woman, her doctor, her moral beliefs, and if she wishes, the man and their families. 
As for the father, that's their problem. If a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, the man must not be much of a father in the first place. I guess the father could always bring up a court case to try to control a woman's reproductive choices. 
When we start legislating our moral beliefs on others is when we start to get in trouble.

Edit: this is actually a response to shaver but you can learn from it too Balfour. I though you Brits were more progressive than your opinion on this matter shows. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

I love seeing a bunch of men discussing an issue that affects women. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. And be men enough to support the women in your lives who feel they need to get abortions so they make other choices. Other than that, the best you can do regarding "choice" is mind your own business and be mindful of who you sleep with. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> So if you think those days were bad, perhaps you might agree that Citizens was a step in the wrong direction? The idea should be to limit any organizations contributions, rather than widen greatly the scope of those that can.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Then the court could've decided not to allow anyone to give unlimited contributions. Of course that would have been of no benefit to the corporate overlords of the right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> How does a woman having an abortion impact you?


How does a foreign genocide impact me? Why should I care? Why should I defend the defenseless?

Are we to assume that all abortions are cold, calculated, decisions and not emotionally charged, irrational missteps (often pushed by third parties with nefarious motives)?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Triklops, if you will permit me, yours is the shoddiest pro abortion argument submitted thus far. I urge you to reflect upon the extrapolation, the inevitable conclusion, of the position you adopt in this matter. 

I disdain bullies. The case may very easily be made that abortion is the zenith (or nadir if you prefer) of bullying. 

Perhaps this thread needs some pics so we may be reminded just what it is we are discussing here? Doubtless such a contribution would be excised by the moderators for the truth of the matter is so dreadfully repellent.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> How does a woman having an abortion impact you? I would never encourage anyone to have one. But a woman I don't even know having an abortion really doesn't have an impact on me so it's none of my business what they do. That's between the woman, her doctor, her moral beliefs, and if she wishes, the man and their families.
> As for the father, that's their problem. If a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, the man must not be much of a father in the first place. I guess the father could always bring up a court case to try to control a woman's reproductive choices.
> When we start legislating our moral beliefs on others is when we start to get in trouble.
> 
> ...


Well, I don't go around indiscriminately murdering people either, but I assume by your logic I am disqualified from commenting on that being a bad idea?

Thank you also for commenting on what you think I can 'learn from'. I agree: A good yardstick will be to see where triklops55 stands on an issue and be repelled by it.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> I love seeing a bunch of men discussing an issue that affects women. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. And be men enough to support the women in your lives who feel they need to get abortions so they make other choices. Other than that, the best you can do regarding "choice" is mind your own business and be mindful of who you sleep with.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I love to see a pretentious liberal sounding off on what he thinks people are 'permitted' to discuss, in the politically correct safe space that must provide the parameters for political discourse.

As Dunne observed--

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Turning to your comment, this is perhaps one of the most offensive comments posted on this forum, which, in The Interchange is a dubious accolade:

"And be men enough to support the women in your lives who feel they need to get abortions so they make other choices."

What insight do you feel you have to presume to comment in such a way?

I will pray for you Triklops, but I hope you will reflect and reform.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Tempest said:


> How does a foreign genocide impact me? Why should I care? Why should I defend the defenseless?
> 
> Are we to assume that all abortions are cold, calculated, decisions and not emotionally charged, irrational missteps (often pushed by third parties with nefarious motives)?


A foreign genocide doesn't impact you. Foreign genocides happen all the time and I'm sure you've done nothing to stop them. You should defend the defenseless if you so choose. But comparing a mass of cells inside another persons body to genocide, and using whatever power you have to oppose abortion instead of fighting to protect the billions of people around the world who are indeed defenseless shows how misguided your advocacy is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Balfour said:


> I love to see a pretentious liberal sounding off on what he thinks people are 'permitted' to discuss, in the politically correct safe space that must provide the parameters for political discourse.
> 
> As Dunne observed--
> 
> ...


Haha. Your one to talk about sounding "pretentious." While I voice my views you resort to personal attacks and proceed to say a bunch of stuff meant to sound smart that says nothing at all to counter my argument.
For those who care so much about the unborn may I offer this piece of advice: give money to the poor. Adopt a few of the millions of orphaned children in the world. Devote your lives to eradicating starvation. Pick up a weapon and go fight oppressive regimes. Then come tell me about how much you care a out human lives. I'll probably believe you then. 
Until you do that, you all just sound like a bunch of men trying to control what women do with their bodies.

Now if I may, gentlemen, I shall return to the clothing forums where you guys actually seem to know what you're talking about. Peace! ️
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> Haha. Your one to talk about sounding "pretentious." While I voice my views you resort to personal attacks and proceed to say a bunch of stuff meant to sound smart that says nothing at all to counter my argument.
> ,,,


I think someone reading your posts without your prejudices would form precisely the opinion of your posts that you impute to me.

But, yeah, "peace" is a wonderful way, in a passive-aggressive way, to resile from the sin you advocate being confronted. I will pray for you. I am sorry you think in the way you do.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

And in this manner, were I to be resisted during rape then I could counter that a woman was attempting to control me? Preventing me from doing as I pleased with my body?



triklops55 said:


> Haha. Your one to talk about sounding "pretentious." While I voice my views you resort to personal attacks and proceed to say a bunch of stuff meant to sound smart that says nothing at all to counter my argument.
> For those who care so much about the unborn may I offer this piece of advice: give money to the poor. Adopt a few of the millions of orphaned children in the world. Devote your lives to eradicating starvation. Pick up a weapon and go fight oppressive regimes. Then come tell me about how much you care a out human lives. I'll probably believe you then.
> Until you do that, you all just sound like a bunch of men trying to control what women do with their bodies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> Haha. Your one to talk about sounding "pretentious." While I voice my views you resort to personal attacks ...


And picking up this point, you give voice to views that state it is not acceptable for men to have views on abortion. It is the most risible argument imaginable. Try to engage with the issue; there are plenty of Catholic women who would 'front' the argument if you only accept views from someone on this issue who possesses a womb.

(By the way, if I were really wishing to be pretentious I would observe you mean "you're" not "your". As you were triklops, as you were.)


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> Foreign genocides happen all the time and I'm sure you've done nothing to stop them.


BDS FTW!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

triklops55 said:


> I love seeing a bunch of men discussing an issue that affects women. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. And be men enough to support the women in your lives who feel they need to get abortions so they make other choices. Other than that, the best you can do regarding "choice" is mind your own business and be mindful of who you sleep with.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Now if we could just do away with the pesky unborn child things would be so much easier.

Ah yes! The world makes so much more sense now that I've been faced with a moral quandary, and guess what? The morals of the matter are exactly what I thought they should be.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

My, this is a pleasant thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Tocque, you know I respect your views but don't carp on the sidelines. Come off the fence and engage in the debate! The thread raises issues of fundamental importance. I know we all come here to talk about clothes. But all the clothes could go on the bonfire when it comes to issues like those raised in this thread. There lies the paradox - the theme of this website is clothing, but my attentions increasingly lie in the Interchange. I guess I can take some comfort in the fact that this replicates M Anton's trajectory at The Other Forum!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> My, this is a pleasant thread.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Given the topic at hand I would suggest that the restraint exercised by many of the participants is rather admirable, surely?


----------



## 215339 (Nov 20, 2012)

Woah, so this is where the gloves come off eh?

Interesting to see the different viewpoints ITT. I didn't know Tempest was right wing either!

I used to be pro-life, then pro-choice, now I'm pro-choice except for myself.

Sentience or self consciousness was the main factor where I drew the line. Fetuses are not self aware, and I'd have argued in the past they were no different from bacteria, so abortion was justifiable.

Then I found evidence that most newborns aren't even really self aware either until they're around 15 months old. Does this make infanticide morally justifiable in our society? To my mind, it wasn't, so it didn't make sense for me to support abortion any more.

At the end of the day though, I'm not the womb police, this is not my decision to make.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

You don't need to be the womb police to take a moral stance. How one may feel toward the matter, there is an objective truth. 

There is nothing wrong with stating that abortion is the taking of a life. It does not preclude someone from ignoring that and having one performed anyway, but regardless of one's personal opinion on whether it is right or wrong, or whether the "choice" resides with the mother only, it does not change the facts.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Tocque, you know I respect your views but don't carp on the sidelines. Come off the fence and engage in the debate! The thread raises issues of fundamental importance. I know we all come here to talk about clothes. But all the clothes could go on the bonfire when it comes to issues like those raised in this thread. There lies the paradox - the theme of this website is clothing, but my attentions increasingly lie in the Interchange. I guess I can take some comfort in the fact that this replicates M Anton's trajectory at The Other Forum!


Fair point. I should engage or stay out. I regret not leaving it alone, but here I am.

This thread combines two things I dislike. 1. A topic that is particularly pointless to debate and difficult to do so in a manner that does not inflame at least someone. Something best not brought up in polite conversation. 2. A gratuitously hostile tone that perhaps derives from the nature of the topic. I'd love to see all the participants take it down a notch, if that's possible, but if not, so it goes.

As for the matter at hand, the divergence appears to be the following: either one sees it categorically as infanticide, in which case there's little if any ground for tolerating it, or one does not. I fall into the latter case, although I can't explain why other than by referring to those few cases in which I find it extremely difficult to believe that the couple in question committed a crime. There is the caricature of the self-centered woman who terminates her pregnancy because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced. But then there are those who are very far from that, and it is for their sake that I wish to preserve the possibility of a safe and legal abortion. And remember what happens when abortion is illegal. So in a way I feel the same about abortion as I do about guns, which is that they should be permitted, but heavily regulated and hard to get, for the safety of one and all.

I'd also prefer to see the anti-abortion movement focus less on shutting down legal access and, worse, shutting down Planned Parenthood or similar clinics that primarily provide basic health care, and more on:

1. Affecting cultural change so that abortion is surrounded by a real social taboo, one sufficient to discourage anyone from obtaining one casually.
2. Providing for alternatives. That is, making it easy for women, especially the young ones for whom a pregnancy generates serious problems, to have the child and give it up for adoption in such a way as to minimize the disruption to the young women's life.

Lastly, there are fundamental problems with the anti-abortion movement at least in the U.S. in that many of those who are most hostile to abortion (right-wing evangelicals) also seem keen on making contraceptives and basic health care hard to obtain, not to speak of the sort of social welfare programs that might make life for, say, a young single mother, more manageable. And they really don't like sex-ed in schools. From my point of view, if one is going to close out abortion as an option, one had better be prepared to do everything possible to make unwanted pregnancies rare, increase access to birth control, and provide decent health care above all to poor, young mothers. Those of us on the left often accuse the right of caring far more about fetuses than about children, especially poor ones. I do.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The question of choice does not negate the objective truth. A fetus is a life. One can choose to kill it but it doesn't make it any less horrific if the law allows it. 

Personally, I have given up on the "abortion should be illegal" line. I never really was a proponent of it as the matter has been settled by the SCOTUS. That the court ruled as it did back then does not change the nature or the objective truth of what an abortion actually is.


----------



## 215339 (Nov 20, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> You don't need to be the womb police to take a moral stance. How one may feel toward the matter, there is an objective truth.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with stating that abortion is the taking of a life. It does not preclude someone from ignoring that and having one performed anyway, but regardless of one's personal opinion on whether it is right or wrong, or whether the "choice" resides with the mother only, it does not change the facts.


Yes, I won't debate that, it's inarguable.

The moral and legal aspect is my interest. Some Pro choice people would argue that not all life is important, but personhood is important.

That is where I came to a dead end. Infants are not "people", but I'm not okay with infanticide. The whole issue is wrought with inconsistencies and hypocrisies. I wouldn't feel comfortable with an abortion if I was ever put into that position. That's where things get more complicated, I wouldn't be the one with the womb anyway.

Should abortion continue to be legal? Illegal?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Perhaps because i see both sides I don't feel invested in the issue. I care more about Planned Parenthood because of all the basic health care it provides and don't care to see it go down as collateral damage in the fight over abortion, so I care more about bids to defund it than, say, bids to outlaw abortions.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

delicious_scent said:


> Yes, I won't debate that, it's inarguable.
> 
> The moral and legal aspect is my interest. Some Pro choice people would argue that not all life is important, but personhood is important.
> 
> ...


If we stop using artificial constructs such as personhood, person, etc and view it as either human life or not human life, then it becomes clearer. An unborn fetus is a human life. The fetus is at a different stage of development as an adolescent is at a different stage of development vs. an adult.

The question of legal vs. illegal is settled. It's legal, with caveats of course.

That it is legal does not absolve one of the mortal sin of killing should one opt for an abortion.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> Perhaps because i see both sides I don't feel invested in the issue. I care more about Planned Parenthood because of all the basic health care it provides and don't care to see it go down as collateral damage in the fight over abortion, so I care more about bids to defund it than, say, bids to outlaw abortions.


How can you claim that PP is needed when healthcare is now offered to everyone?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> How can you claim that PP is needed when healthcare is now offered to everyone?


It isn't. You know better than that. And it certainly isn't free.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> It isn't. You know better than that. And it certainly isn't free.


Have you told the president? He seems to think that we passed healthcare for everyone.



> But that's already in place. Now, here's the second thing you need to know. If you're one of over 40 million Americans who don't have health insurance -- including hundreds of thousands of folks right here in Maryland -- starting on Tuesday, five days from now, you'll finally have the same chance to buy quality, affordable health care as everybody else.
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/26/remarks-president-affordable-care-act


And is PP free?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm not going to engage in discussions of the morality of those who support abortion rights nor of those who oppose them.

Jesus walked the earth for over 40 years. He spoke of many things, and counseled those of us who believed Him to be the Son of God on many issues. Primary among them was His admonition to love the Lord with all our hearts and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Not. One. Word. About abortion, a practice common among Jews and Gentiles alike during the time of Pilate.

One would think, if God believed abortion to be a grievous sin or "murder," He would have been unequivocal about His direction to us who follow His word. That He would have put His position forward in His many sermons. But not. One. Word.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Suffice it to say, MaxBuck, the teaching of the Church is clear enough on the issue:*

Abortion

*
*2270* Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.[SUP]72[/SUP]
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.[SUP]73[/SUP]My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.[SUP]74

[/SUP]
*2271* Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: 
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.[SUP]75[/SUP]God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.[SUP]76
[/SUP]
*2272* Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication _latae sententiae_,"[SUP]77[/SUP] "by the very commission of the offense,"[SUP]78[/SUP] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.[SUP]79[/SUP] The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.


*2273* The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a _constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation_: 
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."[SUP]80[/SUP]
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."[SUP]81

[/SUP]
*2274* Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. 
_Prenatal diagnosis_ is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."[SUP]82

[/SUP]
*2275* "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."[SUP]83[/SUP]
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."[SUP]84[/SUP]
"Certain attempts to _influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance _are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"[SUP]85[/SUP] which are unique and unrepeatable.

_Catechism of the Catholic Church

_https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#I


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> *I'm not going to engage in discussions of the morality of those who support abortion rights nor of those who oppose them.
> *
> Jesus walked the earth for over 40 years. He spoke of many things, and counseled those of us who believed Him to be the Son of God on many issues. Primary among them was His admonition to love the Lord with all our hearts and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> ...


Your post does precisely that.

And in what theology do you understand Jesus to have lived to over 40 years? Genuinely curious on this latter point.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Have you told the president? He seems to think that we passed healthcare for everyone.
> 
> And is PP free?


You're being silly. POTUS makes no such claim. What he did was expand access to healthcare for a lot of people, a concept that seems to offend conservatives. As for PP, they ask for donations, I believe, or "suggested fees," meaning one pays what one can.

I will confess here on this forum that once I went for STD screening. They didn't charge me, which was good because I was a penniless student. I know lots of young women who at some point in their lives relied on them for basic gynecological care and/or contraception. For those without heath insurance, PP can be immensely valuable, and above all they help many, many women avoid getting pregnant in the first place, which I hope we can all agree is infinitely better than abortions.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> I'm not going to engage in discussions of the morality of those who support abortion rights nor of those who oppose them.
> 
> Jesus walked the earth for over 40 years. He spoke of many things, and counseled those of us who believed Him to be the Son of God on many issues. Primary among them was His admonition to love the Lord with all our hearts and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> ...


God is pro abortion?

More seriously, I should imagine that Himself would credit a man to be able to discern that this is covered by the commandment of Exodus 20:13.

.
.

.
.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> .... There is the caricature of the self-centered woman who terminates her pregnancy because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced....


Do forgive me Tocquers for editing your post so heavily but this is the line with which I take greatest umbrage. Are you trying to insinuate that this 'caricature' is not valid?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Do forgive me Tocquers for editing your post so heavily but this is the line with which I take greatest umbrage. Are you trying to insinuate that this 'caricature' is not valid?


Well said.

I think we can all agree that the moral issues are much more difficult when the mother's health is at risk, or following rape. My own view is in accordance with the teachings of the Church even then. I feel enormous compassion for those in such difficult circumstances.

But the use of abortion as a contraceptive for the feckless, or even as I have seen reported as a 'gender selection tool' is just ... well, I must not Godwin the thread, so I will leave my post with 'abhorrent'.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Do forgive me Tocquers for editing your post so heavily but this is the line with which I take greatest umbrage. Are you trying to insinuate that this 'caricature' is not valid?


Good point, Shaver. I need to be more careful with my words. There's clearly truth to the caricature; that woman exists. But there are other truths that are lost from view.

The issue reminds me of the rhetoric about "welfare queens" that we had I think starting with Reagan. Those who wanted to dismantle our social welfare system raised the specter of the "welfare queen" who lived in relative comfort by bilking the system. The welfare queen did so in part by having lots of kids, because that created more opportunities for subsidies, and she certainly didn't work. Of course, there was truth to that caricature, too, but there were other truths about poverty, men, women, and children in very difficult circumstances who needed all the help they could get.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Google never fails:

https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...behind-the-lies-of-the-original-welfare-queen


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ That's chump change. Hundreds of millions are wasted annually on duplicate services and bridges and airports to no where. That's the real welfare.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ That's chump change. Hundreds of millions are wasted annually on duplicate services and bridges and airports to no where. That's the real welfare.


And then there's the DOD, for which I do most of my work...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## clmickle (Apr 19, 2012)

Have to bite my tongue


----------



## Regent1879 (Jan 14, 2016)

Being a Wisconsin citizen... Yes Lands End is from Wis... I was sadden by that move.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Regent1879 said:


> Being a Wisconsin citizen... Yes Lands End is from Wis... I was saddened by that move.


People have strong feelings about PP, me included, but most businesses steer clear of controversial organizations of any stripe just as a matter of prudent business. My suspicion is that the decision-makers at LE live in a community of siloed progressives that truly did not appreciate that a significant number of their customers might take offense. It is an odd elixir of ignorance and arrogance.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> ... a community of siloed progressives ....


A truly signature worthy quote. And it is so true to observe that there is little as smugly entitled, arrogant and dare I say intolerant of other views as this group.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Balfour said:


> A truly signature worthy quote. And it is so true to observe that there is little as smugly entitled, arrogant and dare I say intolerant of other views as this group.


Thanks, Balfour. To be fair, the Right has its silos too, but the problem is not nearly as acute. As our culture becomes increasingly dominated by a progressive "elite," it is increasingly impossible to be unfamiliar with the assumptions and presumptions of the Left. Indeed, today it is the Right that experiences the fun (and risk) of "speaking truth to power." (And it is truly delicious to explain just that to someone accusing you of a horrible micro-aggression.)


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks, Balfour. To be fair, the Right has its silos too, but the problem is not nearly as acute. As our culture becomes increasingly dominated by a progressive "elite," it is increasingly impossible to be unfamiliar with the assumptions and presumptions of the Left. Indeed, today it is the Right that experiences the fun (and risk) of "speaking truth to power." (And it is truly delicious to explain just that to someone accusing you of a horrible micro-aggression.)


True enough. It's the hypocrisy of some liberals that cracks me up, to be honest - preaching tolerance for all those apart those with the temerity to disagree with liberal tenets.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

Well, American conservatives are sure willing to set aside their differences to unite behind their natural leader. Raise your hand if you disagree with liberal tenets!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tradical said:


> Well, American conservatives are sure willing to set aside their differences to unite behind their natural leader. Raise your hand if you disagree with liberal tenets!


The fact that it is photoshopped is made worse by the fact that you know it's photoshopped. This therefore serves more as insight into your opinions and views rather than a statement of fact about Trump.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> The fact that it is photoshopped is made worse by the fact that you know it's photoshopped. This therefore serves more as insight into your opinions and views rather than a statement of fact about Trump.


Seriously? Is it photoshopped? That's actually the first I heard that claim, so I'd love to see it substantiated. I'll save bandwidth by not posting several different ones, but I'd love to see where you found out. Here's a different one that certainly attests to the gravitas and sober political tastes of American conservatives. Probably not real either...


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> The fact that it is photoshopped is made worse by the fact that you know it's photoshopped. This therefore serves more as insight into your opinions and views rather than a statement of fact about Trump.


Here's a video of the moment from which the screen capture is taken. I apologize if the video, like the moon landing, turns out to be a conspiratorial fake:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

https://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-nazi-salute/

The pic you posted was clearly cropped and edited to suggest something that it wasn't.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> https://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-nazi-salute/


I'm perhaps drunk on lattes and swooning from the fumes I inhaled while melting down subarus and guns to forge into gay wedding rings, but that link doesn't say anything about photoshopping. Nor did I make any reference to the Nazis, which is the claim that your link debunks.

Try again? Perhaps after fortifying yourself with a delicious Trump steak?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The pic you posted was cropped and edited, I don't know if they used photoshop to do it, but the pic was edited from it's original format. Call it what you will. 

And don't beat around the Bush. You know what your intent was so don't play coy.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> The pic you posted was cropped and edited, I don't know if they used photoshop to do it, but the pic was edited from it's original format. Call it what you will.


I think the technical term you're looking for is "screencap."



SG_67 said:


> And don't beat around the Bush. You know what your intent was so don't play coy.


Well, I certainly don't need to beat the Bush itself: American conservatives resoundingly rejected Jeb(!) without any help from me. If, however, you speculate that my intent was to illustrate that American conservatives are enthusiastically about to nominate an apricot-hued carnival barker to be President of the United States, you successfully cracked the code.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^^ Interesting selection nonetheless. Sorry, we're not gullible college freshies. 

You don't get to make insinuations and then run and hide. I'm guessing your bile is not reserved for Trump. Had he stayed in the golden penthouse on 5th Ave, you'd be saying the same as anyone who is leading the pack right now.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> I'm guessing your bile is not reserved for Trump. Had he stayed in the golden penthouse on 5th Ave, you'd be saying the same as anyone who is leading the pack right now.


I do believe you're clutching your pearls too tightly if you read anything above as bilious (maybe humor, but not at bilious humor in the medieval sense). I can assure you that neither I nor anyone I can imagine would refer to John Kasich as an apricot-hued carnival barker. Nor Carly Fiorina, nor Jeb, nor... I'd name them all but I'm not sure there's enough space on the forum. Ironically, the one candidate who's actually closest politically to, say, Richard Nixon in terms of policy and friends (beloved of Wall Street, vacations with Kissinger, voted for Goldwater -- the whole deal!) is currently leading in the Democratic primary. Funny world.

But you're right that I should be more respectful of Donald Trump and the party that is about to nominate him for President (take heart, though -- unabashed theocrat Ted Cruz is gaining ground fast!). Though we vote for different candidates, one thing I share with Republicans: we both look at Donald Trump and say "There's a fine representative of conservative values in America today."


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ no what I find bilious if the facility with which you want to compare Trump and anyone who supports him, as a nazi.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Tradical said:


> ... Though we vote for different candidates, one thing I share with Republicans: we both look at Donald Trump and say "There's a fine representative of conservative values in America today."


Nope.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Tradical said:


> .....Though we vote for different candidates, one thing I share with Republicans: we both look at Donald Trump and say "There's a fine representative of conservative values in America today."


Hardly


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Indeed!

As a lifelong Republican, I continue to view him as the Village Idiot and watching the newscasts updating the electoral circus that is presently underway, daily pray that we come to our senses before it is too late. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> ^ no what I find bilious if the facility with which you want to compare Trump and anyone who supports him, as a nazi.


 Again, I simply cannot find any evidence for your claim in anything I've written. Others may be guilty of making the comparison, perhaps misled by poor historical understanding or distracted by the fact that Trump re-tweets open, avowed White Supremacists. Not I.

A close examination of his rhetoric and proposed policies -- as well as the fact that he's re-tweeted quotations from the man himself -- makes Mussolini comparisons more apt, for what it's worth. Very, very different.


----------



## Tradical (Dec 17, 2006)

FLCracka said:


> Hardly


I sense a recognizable fallacy approaching... Are you suggesting that No True Conservative supports Trump? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

I'm also finally ready to admit to my "photoshopping" crime: close examination of the evidence will reveal that I cropped out Trump's well-thumbed copy of the Federalist Papers, as well as a gold-plated copy of the collected works of Edmund Burke.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tradical said:


> I sense a recognizable fallacy approaching... Are you suggesting that No True Conservative supports Trump? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
> 
> .


Only to be substituted with a straw man fallacy. No one is saying that, except for you of course.


----------

