Jump to content

CV75

Contributor
  • Content Count

    15,276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,734 Excellent

1 Follower

About CV75

  • Rank
    Declares a Day of Rest

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,684 profile views
  1. As long as I can remember (adult convert, 1975), I used the full name of the Church and explained "Mormon" since that was/is the commonly recognized. Of course this was always in the context of a larger conversation. The vast majority of my community and social circle were/are not well acquainted with the Church. I have never seen members of the Church get agitated when others use "Mormon" instead, so I'm interested in the broader context in which you use it (why, how, the circumstances, etc.). I'm not sure why you would find it a difficult phrase to use. or be particularly subject t
  2. Asking @smac97 and @Bob Crockett to offer an explanation for the legal reasoning supporting the OP quote.
  3. I agree, but someone always makes the suggestion as if they are well-informed, but I have yet to see them offer a sound, factual basis.
  4. I've taken this to be the meaning behind the term, "new and everlasting."
  5. Like the other laws, abortion law reflects the people’s attitude toward both medical and moral problems and toward limiting government’s role in funding, regulation, criminalizing, etc. I understand that I am not always clear and am happy to (try at least) clarify. Or just say “Never mind.” I am not asking which moral action has greater fixed standing, but which action would be taken in a given situation since both are concurrent and in the same sphere. They are virtually one decision and action; action on one principle is a proactive pause on the other. The collective and the indiv
  6. The USA has many laws that directly control how we can treat medical problems. This is why we have the Right to Try Act (2018) to access certain unapproved treatments. On the other end of the spectrum, the state can act as a surrogate parent when a parent fails to provide or consent to the necessary medical care for their child. As a democratic republic, we see a balance of power between the individual, other individuals, and the society in which we live. That balance plays out in the laws dealing with the body at various stages of development and condition and decisions about compliance
  7. We all make decisions about complying with the law, which represents society's (typically most individuals, depending on the government but let's say we're talking about the USA) morals and mores. Whether women are empowered to make laws (as part of a society) and decisions about compliance (as individuals operating within our society) has a much more fundamental cause than those laws dealing with the body at various stages of development and condition and our decisions about compliance. I think everyone agrees that the more people are empowered in a democratic republic, the better thing
  8. Could this be capitalism at its best? How can the model be expanded with investors (and corporations) that voluntarily limit their gains to a living wage annually? What would a surplus look like and how would it be managed? The United Order has a "community" storehouse and everyone can earn (i.e. spend) as much as they require.
  9. No, I do not take it as binary. I am sure you can see where abortion is criminalized and where it is not in consideration of various degrees and circumstances of decision-making in the society in which you operate. I would say your lack of empowerment within the dynamic between individual and group powers has a much more fundamental cause and application than those laws dealing with the body at various stages of development and condition.
  10. I suspect the subject matter tends to be about the Lord's final mortal week and resurrection whenever Conference is held on an Easter weekend. When it isn't, I still see a "So, on this Easter weekend, let's remember [principle]" kind of statement included. Conference talks are always Christ-centered no matter the specific topics of emphasis. The actual quote goes, "To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement." Referring to oneself as a Mormon
  11. But my question is about individually exercising agency to settle gray areas that straddle both individual and societal morality (the talk covers that). This is why the black-and-white default, “It is always more moral for a woman to make a decision about her own body than it is for society to force her to carry a pregnancy” is faulty. It also ignores that the moral-defining individual and societal agents are interdependent operators. I also think "force" and "compel" are the wrong words to use to describe how things are set up in our society, including the talk, but I've been letting that go
  12. But that is not the subject of the question. Neverminded.
  13. You have both made it nonsensical and changed it. My question is like asking, "Given that the female carrying a human being is part of a proactive societal entity and functions accordingly, at what point is her killing the human being she carries more moral than her member society compelling her to carry them?"
  14. Given that the agent can also take the form of a proactive societal entity and function accordingly, at what point is killing the carried human being more moral than compelling their carriage?
  15. My question is: at what point is killing the carried human being more moral than compelling their carriage?
×
×
  • Create New...