Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. I think you are correct with Charles Russel, Joseph Rutheford, Joseph Smith Jr., Suffner, Namelka, there is a term that is used to describe the groups that follow these men. John Calvin not so much.
  3. I have said that I don’t buy the bifurcated Iron Rod/Liahona approaches. I think it is an invention from the misunderstanding and misapplication of the scriptures. That’s why I have responded. I think calling members Iron Rodders and Liahonans is bogus. I would be interested in your response to the actual scriptures.
  4. Nice try. Now who's dodging the point? So your subjective and personal guilt, or lack thereof, would be determinative? I don't think so. In a Sophie's Choice scenario? No. But not in a way that requires me to deny the humanity of the unborn. With respect, I disagree. Thanks, -Smac
  5. Or just waiting a year. Some 18 year olds are ready. It’s not a big deal to wait.
  6. But they help us develop an informed and reasoned basis for deciding "whether something is right or wrong." Not exactly. All they do is help us decide if our pre-existing moral judgment (i.e., whether something is right or wrong) applies in some particular case. So, for example, assume arguendo that you were raised Jewish and came to hold a moral belief that is wrong to eat certain kinds of animals. Science could provide you with facts about all of the various species of animals on the planet, and it's true that you could use those facts to help determine whether or not some specific animal runs afoul of your moral code, but science doesn't actually tell you anything about whether it is right or wrong to abstain from eating pigs in the first place.
  7. Nice try. Here’s the difference: I’d be forever haunted by the decision. In theory, there might be a scenario where enough lives were on the line that I would choose the many over my own son. It would be a difficult choice. Because they are both people. How about the fridge? Can you honestly say your choice to save the newborn keep you up at night? If the answer is no, and if the answer is that no number of embryos in the fridge is worth saving over the life a living breathing infant, then that tells you that the scenarios are different in a way that matters. What’s the difference? Embryos are not people. Not even close. Despite your professed belief to the contrary your proposed actions demonstrate otherwise.
  8. It's not either/or. Right. So pro-choice women think for themselves, but pro-life women do not? Thanks, -Smac
  9. Providing knowledge and resources is far more effective than trying to persuade people not to have sex. That's not a context I'm very familiar with, but that may be the case. Can you show me somewhere where you've advocated for them? It's not odd. People seek social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities all the time. Also, "pro-life" does not mean "anti-abortion." Almost 20% of people answer "both" when asked if they're pro-life or pro-choice, and even more answer "neither," even though they have a position on abortion. These are identity markers, not firm declarations of policy positions. Only around 35% of women think abortion should be illegal in most cases, and almost 60% think it should be legal in most cases. A majority of men also support the legality of abortion in most cases. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/10/abortion-support-is-highest-its-been-two-decades-two-decade-high-challenges-roe-mount https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions And almost nobody thinks identity politics applies to them, but it absolutely applies to everyone. Our very humanity is a function of identity politics, some are just more aware of its role in our ideologies than others.
  10. It is. It even includes the previous extension date (to June 10, 2019). It looks like she just sent in the same one on two separate dates. For a pro se litigant? Probably not. However, I think the judge will give her a further extension with a clarification that no others will be granted. To be frank, the Church's attorneys may want to just stipulate to the extension. I think the more time that passes lessens the likelihood of her finding an attorney, and also probably lessens her enthusiasm for pursuing the case. And stipulating would make things easy for the court. Thanks, -Smac
  11. That filing looks exactly like the previous extension request, which also asserts that an attorney has agreed to review the case. Do you think the Judge would require some showing that an attorney or firm has agreed to review the case?
  12. Understood. And in doing so you are not denying the personhood of the person you didn't save. Principled distinctions, I think. We work with what we've got. Too speculative. I haven't given this enough thought. I'm open to that. Absent evidence of misconduct? No. Thanks, -Smac
  13. Why the distinction for people in the womb? If I hire someone to murder for me, shouldn’t I be prosecuted? How do you justify the difference if both are the same (people)?
  14. He might also act and feed the multitude immediately. Doing the right thing is sometimes obvious, but maybe I'm too slow.
  15. If so, then a greater emphasis on persuasion rather than criminilization would be appropriate. Well, not all. Forced abortions are a think in China, for example. I'm fine with those. Meh. Not buying this. And it certainly doesn't apply to me. And again, half of women are "pro-life," so it's odd for you to play the Gender Card against them. Thanks, -Smac
  16. Smac, The following points are my attempt to track the essence of your position: You are arguing that we should change the law and essentially grant the legal rights of "personhood" to babies in utero at the time of fertilization (as accurately as that time can be deduced). Your rationale is that the same core arguments for viewing a newborn baby as a person (a status that is essentially not debated) can logically be extended back to the moment of fertilization. You find arguments to deny the status of personhood to babies in utero based on dissimilarities between them and recognized persons (newborns to adults) to be flawed, because essentially all of the dissimilarities are found to not effect the status of personhood in analogous situations (e.g. the mere lack of fully developed cognitive capacities, full awareness, etc. are non-determinative features of personhood). You find counterarguments that essentially rely upon current laws and interpretations of the law to be essentially a moot point because your whole argument is that the law should be changed. You have used the social shift regarding the legal and social perception of slaves as an analogy for how this shift might take place regarding the view of babies in utero. You find appeals to the complexity of navigating moral issues (appeals to the arbitrary, nebulous, capricious, subjective nature of moral reasoning, both generally and in relation to this topic) to also be a moot point because we, as a society, still have to decide how we will act in regard to a number of moral issues, including this one. You are waiting for a response to your fundamental argument, which is that the core reasons for viewing a newborn baby as a person logically extend back to the moment of fertilization. Is that more or less correct? It's hard to keep track of what is actually being argued with so many quibbles and tangential issues raised in the thread.
  17. I think Jesus would obtain an accurate perception and understanding of the facts (as He did with the multitudes need for food), assess the value and competing purposes of His resources (as He did with the box of spikenard ointment), then seek and obtain the Father's will (as He did always).
  18. Rather stunned that comments thus far seem to lay responsibility for "fixing" all this at the feet of the Church, to the apparent exclusion of parenting/family mentoring (or lack thereof) as playing a role.
  19. The former. ...................... What should we do with hard core objection by Roman Catholics to the sin of contraception (which by the way prevents abortion)?
  20. I’d save my own kid because I value his life more. It’s not analogous because I never proclaimed otherwise. You on the one hand state that embryos should be treated by the law the same as a newborn, but on the other hand choose the one over the thousands. You say you believe they should be treated equally, but in action for you they aren’t even close. Your action doesn’t match your belief. Let’s look at it from another angle, would you divert money from combating childhood leukemia in order to buy fridges to preserve embryos that would have been destroyed? Should women who perform a so called “compassionate transfer” be charged with murder?http://www.voicesinbioethics.net/newswire/2017/2/17/sw388nseb7x0o0e0odngdp5q3m0yg1 Should we start figuring out how to do better gamete testing so that we can cut down on the number of spontaneous abortions? Should we investigate spontaneous abortions to make sure the mother was being responsible in her care for the fetus?
  21. IMO raise the missionary age back up.
  22. The simple answer is that it doesn't. Life is continuous. Sperm and ova are both alive, and come from living beings, as part of a continuous chain of being. There was no beginning and there shall be no end -- God being upset with Onan in coitus interruptus, thus wasting his seed. As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for life at viability outside the womb, which gets ever earlier with advances in technology. What they might say in the future is up in the air, but with 3 Jews and 6 Roman Catholics on the Court it is anyone's guess. Meantime, we are a nation of laws, not biologists, nor religionists. The Roman Catholic POV does not allow nuances. What happens then? What I would like to see the pro-life people do, in addition to opposing abortion, would be to take a pro-life stance on infant mortality by ardently supporting pre-natal care for the expectant mothers and good post-natal care. The real thing, not just pretend, as it is now. I want to see the evnagelical and Roman Catholic pro-life people actively demonstrating against separation of babies from their mothers at the border, and a refusal to allow babies and toddlers to be held in squalid conditions on the border. This should apply equally to those who hold the Proclamation on the Family in high esteem: Why aren't they objecting to the assault on the families which show up at the border seeking asylum? Do LDS members of Congress and LDS General Authorities pull out all the stops to seek proper treatment of families on the border -- including emergency tents, food, showers, etc., from Welfare Square in SLC? When have we clothed the naked, fed the hungry, and visited them in jail? WWJD?
  23. I confess I don't see why you think it unfalsifiable depending upon what methodology you permit. (Me being a bit pedantic - but I think it an important point) To your other point again I think you're comparing the wrong theory. The theory you have to compare yours to is Vogel's. Which is more likely?
  24. But criminalizing abortion is not an effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion. Research has consistently shown all around the world that criminalizing abortion only nominally reduces the rate of abortion while increasing the risk associated with all abortions. That research also shows that the most effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion is to reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies, since absolutely all elective abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies. Policies that increase access to comprehensive sex education, to contraception, and to women's healthcare far more effectively reduce both unwanted pregnancy and abortion. In light of this, it is truly bewildering that the overwhelming majority of all opponents of abortion also strongly oppose each of those three policies until you realize that opposition to abortion and opposition to those three policies all fall under the rubric of controlling the agency of women. So tell me, what specifically have you done to promote increased access to comprehensive sex education, to contraception, and to women's healthcare? Keep in mind insisting that women just need to make better choices is another manifestation of precisely the same "controlling the agency of women" rubric so firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. In other words, it's a reification of identity politics.
  25. I only have my stake and the missionaries that serve in my area to go from. It seems like about 75% of those returning home early are for medical reasons. The medical reason in the majority of cases is for mental health. I too hear about anxiety over and over again among the missionaries. I think some of the anxiety and depression is probably medical or familial. 15-20% of the population has depression and anxiety severely enough that they need treatment with medication. How much of this depression/anxiety is situational or reactionary in nature? In other words not what would be typically considered medical. How much of this is preventable or could be prepared for? My experience among the sisters serving around in our area is that about 1 in 6 is returning home early. The better that they are treated and reintegrated into the ward, the better they seem to do over time. Specifically, a calling as soon as possible.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...