Trump and Mike Lee at March for Life Rally

[Scott Lloyd]

I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the March for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. 

Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the Match for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. 

Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. 

I can see now why we disagree on white privilege.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the Match for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. 

Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. 

I can see now why we disagree on white privilege.

You disagree with Scott because he's an apparent Republican?  And because "white privilege" is a hyper-partisan, politicized concept?

Isn't that what I have been saying?  A lot?

Or, as Mr. Tatum put it: "So, let’s be real: White privilege is an attempt by the left to divide Americans by race."

It's a political potshot.  It has no clinical, empirical meaning or application.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 24, 2020 by smac97

[snowflake]

A president and Utah senator showing support for the life of unborn babies!?!?  How dare he!?!? I'm offended. 

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You disagree with Scott because he's an apparent Republican?  And because "white privilege" is a hyper-partisan, politicized concept?

Isn't that what I have been saying?  A lot?

Thanks,

-Smac

No, just referring to Pres. Trump's remarks awhile back. But I think what I said wasn't cool. But do think political outlook can be a division and paint our viewpoints. I'm surrounded by haters of the Democrats in Utah. I don't call myself either though, independent of the two extremes for sure.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/588067/

Edited January 24, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

No, just referring to Pres. Trump's remarks awhile back. But I think what I said wasn't cool. But do think political outlook can be a division and paint our viewpoints. I'm surrounded by haters of the Democrats in Utah. I don't call myself either though, independent of the two extremes for sure.

You start by saying "No," but then you seem to essentially concede my point, which is that "white privilege" is a politicized, partisan concept.  "Political outlook can...paint our viewpoints."  I agree wholeheartedly.

This is why I keep pointing to its partisan origins (it was coined/popularized by a leftist academic), and to its partisan use (pretty much exclusively along politically partisal lines), and also to somewhat "objective" approaches to the concept, such as whether "white privilege" has been recognized as a legitimate legal claim or defense, whether it has been defined by published dictionaries.

Thank you,

-Smac

[cinepro]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the Match for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. 

Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. 

It would mean more to me if I thought Trump cared at all about abortion.

Edited January 24, 2020 by cinepro

[MiserereNobis]

Is Mike Lee and the LDS church going to take the next logical step and push for banning abortion in the case of rape and incest? The life created from rape or incest is still a life and has done nothing wrong to deserve to be aborted. If people are going to protest and argue that an unborn fetus is a life (pro-life rallies!) then they need to extend that to all unborn fetuses. I find the LDS position here illogical. If the response is that carrying the child of a rapist would cause great trauma to a woman than we are admitting that the woman's emotion/psychological health is of greater importance than that of the life of a child. This is conceding a pro-choice premise but only changing where the line is drawn. If, in the case of incest, the argument is given that the child has a greater chance of deformity, then we would have to allow abortion in the cases of down syndrome and the like.

Why does the LDS church hold the position that aborting children is ok in these instances?

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It would mean more to me if I thought Trump cared at all about abortion.

This. I read the transcript. He went through the mandatory talking points and then quickly pivoted to what he really wanted to talk about: telling everyone how amazing he is.

I do admit to a morbid curiosity over how many abortions he has paid for over the years on top of any standard hush money.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is Mike Lee and the LDS church going to take the next logical step and push for banning abortion in the case of rape and incest?

I doubt it.

What about "life of the mother"?

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The life created from rape or incest is still a life and has done nothing wrong to deserve to be aborted.

I don't dispute that.

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If people are going to protest and argue that an unborn fetus is a life (pro-life rallies!) then they need to extend that to all unborn fetuses.

I think there are limited circumstances where a genuine moral conundrum can arise as pertaining to abortion (rape, incest, life of the mother). But these are, AFAICS, quite rare. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the nation’s leading abortion seller, Planned Parenthood, about 15,000 abortions are attributed to rape and incest — representing 1.5 percent of all abortions. (Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7jvrfff). Here's the Guttmacher data from 2004: https://tinyurl.com/y3kkwroj ("Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives").

As regarding the life of the mother, "maternal mortality refers to the death of a woman during her pregnancy or up to a year after her pregnancy has terminated; this only includes causes related to her pregnancy and does not include accidental causes." (https://tinyurl.com/y38fn6fb).  The maternal mortality rate in the United States was, as of 2014, 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births.  Id.  If my math is correct, that's about .024%.  (In contrast, the infant mortality rate for abortions is nearly 100%. (See https://tinyurl.com/yxmoel3d ("How often are infants born alive after attempted abortions? It hardly ever happens, according to Dr. Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.").)  See also here.

The Church's position on abortion is both clear (see here, here and here) and yet also nuanced (see here).

Is that nuance justified?  Regarding "life of the mother" scenarios, I think the answer is "yes."  Regarding "rape" or "incest" scenarios, I think "maybe."

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I find the LDS position here illogical.

I think the LDS position relative to "life of the mother" scenarios is logical.  It's a genuine conundrum, wouldn't you say?

Regarding "rape" scenarios, I think the Church's position on agency creates the basis for nuance (the woman was impregnated against her will).

Regarding "incest" scenarios, I think fetal viability and genetic concerns may be an issue, but I am more conflicted about that.

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If the response is that carrying the child of a rapist would cause great trauma to a woman than we are admitting that the woman's emotion/psychological health is of greater importance than that of the life of a child.

I understand your concern.  It's quite justified.

I also see the Church's position on nuance.  I'm conflicted about it, TBH.

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is conceding a pro-choice premise but only changing where the line is drawn.

As to rape and incest, perhaps.  Not "life of the mother" (which I think is indisputably a genuine conundrum).

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If, in the case of incest, the argument is given that the child has a greater chance of deformity, then we would have to allow abortion in the cases of down syndrome and the like.

Why does the LDS church hold the position that aborting children is ok in these instances?

See here (emphasis added):

Quote

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the March for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. 

Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. 

Pride, as in being proud, is a sin.  If you meant "well pleased" then I think you should have said that, instead.

But that still begs the question:  How proud or well pleased were you with Mike or any Utah senator before this momentous moment?

A stirring speech, huh.  I like to wave at moments like that as they pass by.

[snowflake]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This. I read the transcript. He went through the mandatory talking points and then quickly pivoted to what he really wanted to talk about: telling everyone how amazing he is.

Well....he is the GOAT. 🐐

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Pride, as in being proud, is a sin.  If you meant "well pleased" then I think you should have said that, instead.

But that still begs the question:  How proud or well pleased were you with Mike or any Utah senator before this momentous moment?

A stirring speech, huh.  I like to wave at moments like that as they pass by.

Three points: 

1. Use of the word “pride” is no longer the anathema in the Church that it was once made out to be. President Uchtdorf clarified that when he was in the First Presidency. Don’t drag us down that semantic rabbit hole. 
 

2. You used the phrase “begs the question” improperly. If you mean it raises the question or it prompts the question, you should say it in that manner. 
 

3. I liked Mike Lee before. I’m even more approving of him now. So what? 

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

2. You used the phrase “begs the question” improperly. If you mean it raises the question or it prompts the question, you should say it in that manner. 

This is one of my pet peeves as well  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It would mean more to me if I thought Trump cared at all about abortion.

I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt if there be any. In any case, the nation’s chief executive has now formally endorsed this event, a benefit it has never before enjoyed. I find that impressive. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Three points: 

1. Use of the word “pride” is no longer the anathema in the Church that it was once made out to be. President Uchtdorf clarified that when he was in the First Presidency. Don’t drag us down that semantic rabbit hole. 

Oh, so you're one of those people who believes that.  I will try to make that allowance for you but you're not helping me by having a different idea on this issue than I do.  I like to keep things as simple as possible so for me pride is not good and being well pleased is good.

Quote

2. You used the phrase “begs the question” improperly. If you mean it raises the question or it prompts the question, you should say it in that manner. 

My views are interchangable on this point.  I see the desire to beg a question as a stronger feeling which prompts someone to want to ask a question in response to what someone has said.  But I understand that begging doesn't mean the same thing to all people.

Quote

3. I liked Mike Lee before. I’m even more approving of him now. So what? 

I just had a strong desire to know.  That's all.  Thank you for letting me know.  Maybe someday you'll be even more pleased with Mike Lee or any other senator from Utah and you'll then say you don't think you could be pleased any better by any senator from anywhere else.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My views are interchangable on this point.  I see the desire to beg a question as a stronger feeling which prompts someone to want to ask a question in response to what someone has said.  But I understand that begging doesn't mean the same thing to all people.

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that refers to circular reasoning. It doesn't mean to prompt a question, but it is often misused to mean that. It is a phrase used in logic.

See here.

[Kevin Christensen]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt if there be any. In any case, the nation’s chief executive has now formally endorsed this event, a benefit it has never before enjoyed. I find that impressive. 

There is no doubt that Trump's motive in pandering to a group of one-issue voters has more to do with his Impeachment and the upcoming election than for his concern for any life other than his own. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that refers to circular reasoning. It doesn't mean to prompt a question, but it is often misused to mean that. It is a phrase used in logic.

See here.

If Ahab had seen or remembered what I have posted many times on this oft-misused phrase, he would understand that already. 
 

Or maybe he’s just being (typically) argumentative. 

[stemelbow]

The number of abortions performed by humans pails in comparison to the number of abortions caused by God.  If they were really going to take this seriously, they should be demonstrating against God.  

Let me clarify, if God can stop a fetus from being terminated, and he hasn't, then he has rejected the sanctity of life that pro-lifers proclaim as reason for no abortions.  If God has stopped one abortion, then why not others?  Or if God is the cause of natural disasters, as in the Noah story where He uses them to murder and maim, then it would stand to reason he is the cause of all abortions. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is no doubt that Trump's motive in pandering to a group of one-issue voters has more to do with his Impeachment and the upcoming election than for his concern for any life other than his own. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

For my part, I reject the criticism of being a “one-issue voter.” Nor do I feel pandered to. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that refers to circular reasoning. It doesn't mean to prompt a question, but it is often misused to mean that. It is a phrase used in logic.

See here.

Okay, that helps to explain that particular use of the term, but I think the term can be used for other purposes, too, while keeping the meaning of the individual words in mind.  When I use the term "begs the question" I generally mean that what someone has said has inspired me to want to ask a question. I don't agree that with the idea that there is only one correct way to use a figure of speech or of the words that are used in that figure of speech.  You can know what the word begging generally refers to and you can also know what the word question generally refers to, so just latch onto that instead of feeling like I should use words the same way that you do.

And by the way, in regard to pet peeves, I don't like having any pets, since pets usually require me to take care of them more than they take care of me.  I like the animals okay, but usually I prefer to just let them roam wild instead of caging them up or fencing them in or making them dependent on me instead of them taking care of themselves.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The number of abortions performed by humans pails in comparison to the number of abortions caused by God.  If they were really going to take this seriously, they should be demonstrating against God.  

Let me clarify, if God can stop a fetus from being terminated, and he hasn't, then he has rejected the sanctity of life that pro-lifers proclaim as reason for no abortions.  If God has stopped one abortion, then why not others?  Or if God is the cause of natural disasters, as in the Noah story where He uses them to murder and maim, then it would stand to reason he is the cause of all abortions. 

I don't know where you're getting the idea that God has stopped anyone from being born who would otherwise have been born if their birth had not been stopped.  Where did you get that idea?

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If Ahab had seen or remembered what I have posted many times on this oft-misused phrase, he would understand that already. 

We just don't use language the same way, all the time, even though we sometimes do.  That's all.  You don't always agree with me and I don't always agree with you, either.

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or maybe he’s just being (typically) argumentative. 

I like to think of these things as "discussions" rather than "arguments" but I can go either way since I understand how the term argument is used in a legal sense.