Jump to content

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueDreams

  1. They were already headed in that direction pre-raid and they were less isolated and more disperse pre-warren...which is why it's hard to know how much less isolated they would have been and how much their practices would have stayed less extreme in what was already an extreme assertion (the spiritually essential nature of polygamy). The website @webbles gave several practices within the FLDS that increased the likelihood that a Warren Jeffs type man could move in. It created a structure over time that hyper-monopolized power within the sect...to the point that the church decided your family. And by church, it was really one man. This came about with massive shifts in their church structure....which likely made other changes and failed prophecies easier to swallow IMHO. If they were less separated, maybe there would have been more who peeled away from the church. But I doubt it. And some of their beliefs would inevitably lead to at least some cruel practices. For example, the being worthy of the highest degree of the CK is when you have 3 wives. That practice inevitably pushes the age of marriage for women down and the number of single men up. The dynamic of major age gaps would reinforce sexist power dynamics. Since higher authorities had lowkey harems this was even more to cause unstable social practices. Polygamy in just about every society that's ever practiced it has to remain a small subsection of the population at any given moment for the simple factor of numbers. There's a near equal amount of men to women most of the time. With luv, BD
  2. This part I really wonder about this one. The degree of misogyny is by no means similar in all groups. I wonder how one became this hyper patriarchal while other groups maintained at least some relative balance on this.
  3. This time period in the church is also not my forte. I found an article in Slate that does mention the church in the lead up to the raid. There are some errors...like the fact that there were a few excommunications earlier than mentioned. I'm also coincidentally reading Saint 3 write now and am on the chapters right before this raid discussing the difficult work of actually kicking out the polygamy entirely. Both to me points to a more complicated relationship between church-government-polygamist families/groups. The government basically clipped the church both in forms of representation and soon via prosecution, which is what led to the first manifesto. The church changes policy to limit polygamy. The larger public/government hones in on the loopholes with political/social ramifications for the saints. The church officially blocks all new marriages in the 2nd manifesto. Newspapers and the public find new marriage on the local level and magnifies them to large systemic promotion of polygamy. The church starts to more strongly enforce policies on those who continue to refuse to abide the church's policies. Those who insist on polygamy as a higher law who have either left our are excommunicated from the mainstream church begin to separate and form their own groups. The polygamist groups begin to isolate more and continue practice what they see as a "higher" law or way. Which also means the main way people outside these isolated communities begin to interact with them is by the problems that come from them in a larger society that is strongly biased against them and a larger church they're disaffiliated from who often pays the consequences for their reputation. The raid was the 3rd and biggest one on a group that was already starting to isolate strongly under a belief of the righteous against the wicked. This fortified this, though according to the article (and probably the doc, though it touches pre-warren era lightly) this was reducing a little in terms of work and geographic location, as there was a large group that lived in SLC pre-warren. The impulse to isolate, rigid teachings, and generational heritage made it easy for Jeffs to keep pushing the group into further cultic behavior and to leave abusive/dysfunctional behaviors unchecked. https://slate.com/human-interest/2008/04/the-legacy-of-an-infamous-1953-raid-on-a-polygamous-enclave.html With luv, BD
  4. I binged it. Echoing the interesting part. I think the thing that I pulled me was how this evolved. To me it showed the potential weakness of a small tight and insular community. This likely couldn't happen as easily in a larger more spread out one. But overall it was a good watch. There were parts of me that wished for more of the "other side" per se. More of the stories from those that are still in it. I want to know how they processed this. How they see their community at this point, etc. But that's a story I'll probably never get. With luv, BD
  5. Sure. It's not super easy if shame's a go-to. But it's based on cognitive behavioral therapy (basicaly identifying and changing thinking errors or maladaptive beliefs), learning to practice self-compassion, and being mindful of when one is falling into a shame hole. Really bad shame patterns I call shame-holes or say they like blackholes because no light or positive messages outside them really can help them escape it. It has to be them learning to take and believe the messages they come up with outside the shame-hole and responding back them for oneself when in them. I've watch more than one well-meaning partner try to bolster them up and wear themselves out before their shaming partners starts to ease out of their shame-hole. If there's shame given from an external source and the person doesn't naturally go to shame, then it's just learning to process the message, see what is actually true (maybe they did something wrong) v what isn't (that they're bad, extreme assumptions, etc). With luv, BD
  6. i agree with calm. For me I would say it’s more of an interplay. How Children see others interact around problems or mistakes can cement or shift their own predispositions to shame or not. Some are more likely to fall into shame than others. shifts in beliefs and cognitions can reduce a shame response. No one can fully “force” one to feel shame. It’s more like strong influences that add up. with luv, bd
  7. I have. Funny enough on the same part about my family. I had a paragraph largely tied to that, going into detail about my relationship with my spouse. When my parents were fighting and things were going badly, I’d take my blessing and read that paragraph again and again to remind myself that this wasn’t what I’d have forever. It’s what I worked towards when fixing some of the baggage I got from said situation. Later in my 20’s and in love with the wrong guy, the same blessing kept me hesitant about him and more cautious while I was with him on and off, since it was apparent he was missing some key traits. That said, There were things I assumed about meeting my husband that I did get wrong. With luv BD
  8. I think we're talking a little past each other on this point. I'm talking more personal nuanced "why's" moreso than abstract conceptual "why's." For example my personal why started as a deep sense that I was missing something and then a knowing of God as I tried to seek what I was missing. My covenants became innately personal at a fairly young age. Fear has a role to play, but it's generally a pretty weak one and one of last resort in the scriptures. That fear only works with some form of personal knowledge or assumption of God. But none of these are exactly how I've seen some of the people I'm picturing when I talked above. Many were doing church due to routine, social assumptions, and misplaced loyalties. A simple example: one I know enjoyed the experience of being praised and went through the motions of covenant making without understanding much more past the expected social stage related to the rite. If it were just that, it may have been workable, but there was more going one. Stuff that takes years of therapy to work through. And without it, many of these rites would get sucked into a space in them not ready to really receive them. I would argue that though both of us went through the same rite, we did not experience or make the same covenant. I made further covenants mindfully, fully committed to God, and with a firm sense of God in my life. They made it out of social expectations, with a strong desire to look good, and with a sense of God but a difficulty really understanding themselves, the experiences they've had, and who God really is. Note, I'm simplifying this. These stories that I'm thinking of are usually complex. There's layers to unpack and these layers often can get enmeshed in seriously unhealthy ways with their religiosity. While in this state, the abstract motivations get warped. They may hyper-focus on fear of punishment, which ends up making any form of love (expressed or received) difficult and tenuous, and hold only tentative hope that they may one day be rewarded for honoring their covenants. They may hope for earthly reward, love praise by their peers, and constantly worry about social punishment. Grief, trauma, social expectations, etc have crowded out healthy spiritual connection to God or the church community. Some to a point that interaction causes severe psychological distress and unhealthy coping behaviors. And in that place covenants can bind them to their dysfunctions, not to God. When these haven't been warped, when there are less drastic soul/mind corrections needed, this advice can work. When there isn't, this advice can fall flat at best and accidently exacerbate problems at worse. I would argue that wasn't actually Adam's starting point. Their starting point was knowing God and being able to differentiate between the Godly and ungodly to a basic degree. This underlined part (among other things) is somewhat what I'm talking about. There are experiences and contexts where Obedience is done in a way that is not good for people. Scrupulosity comes to mind. Some can rearrange this without leaving or "taking a break" from the church. Some can't. I'm not assuming full comprehension, but I'm expecting at least healthy pre-reqs to obedience, as I mentioned with Adam and Eve. I can. I disagree. The context is what we are bring to the covenant. Easy example is cain and able. Able made a covenant in sincerity or faith. Cain....not so much. I'm definitely not saying the people I'm thinking of are pulling a Cain. I'm just pointing out that the context can shift the meaning and impact of a covenant. For example, I've met people who married for definitely the wrong reasons. Just because they were sealed does not mean that the act suddenly shifted the innate problems in the relationship. I would contend that without serious changed in the dynamics (if possible) the act is fairly vacant of promise and meaning. Funny enough, I've given the advice to mom's especially to "take a break" from the kids. Usually because they've become so wrapped up in child care that they've lost a sense of self and other aspects of their lives are struggling. So it's pretty easy for me to think that one may need to "take a break" from the kiddos and give at least some of the obligations to another for a while. Depending on the depth of dysfunction, that may need to be a longer break. With luv, BD
  9. I’m more with @sunstoned on this one. There’s a series of social factors that are making extreme acts seem more justifiable. And it’s not this theory I’ve seen floated that you’re referencing in bold. In the US we have several problems coming to a head: a national governing body that is becoming more and more dysfunctional to the point that major concerns go unanswered and have been for a long time Greater social stratification on wealth and ideology especially. In so much that the “other side” are more and more seen as a threat in aggregate and the regular person as powerless compared to the rich. a sense of causes that would lead to death or the end of something deemed essential to ones rights/liberty…unless the people directly act (because again governing sources often won’t…or will act in a way that further entrenches/enables a problem) personally the bolded theory seems a stretch at best. It’s placing pro-life moral frameworks over a single group causing largely major vandalism and building damage as being okay with killing in general. For one that’s not how very pro-choice people see it. They distinguish the born and unborn in terms of personhood and then prioritize the woman’s needs and concerns over the fetus. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this framework still means that pro-choice people would not be likely to start committing violent acts of born humans anymore than a meat eater would naturally be more prone to mass shootings since they’re willing to endorse the mass slaughter of animals. after all any form of violence begets violence and if one is willing to kill one form of life for yourself than it’s a matter of time that you’d be willing to kill other forms of life. With luv, BD
  10. I'm linking these together because they both tie to the purpose of what one is doing. Why do you personally keep the commandments? What's the point of the covenants? What is the purpose in them? for me, most of my covenants I firmly believe and see a purpose in them. Even the ones I'm not the best at (looking at you fasting). At varying points in my life they've become valuable and foster my spiritual growth and development. They make me a better person. More like my Savior. The people I'm thinking of often don't have the same purpose and understanding of the covenants they made as I do. Some people have no answer to this and just tell me it's what they're supposed to do. Some have a really warped belief around their purpose. Some have lost a sense of meaning due the negative experiences they've had that piled up on them. To me, if the covenant is not working to bring one to a greater wholeness through Christ, it's lost its savor and is good for nothing....it just becomes meaningless ritual. And until other more basic things have realigned in a healthier manner it's going to continue to be at best worthless. At worse it can actually be fairly harmful as they expend energy on things like what I call "checklist jesus" and not on the needed healing From what you describe I assume you also find deeper purpose to the commands you follow or strive to live by. That's wonderful. In that circumstance it makes sense that it would be unjustifiable to deliberately break them. But for those I've come to know, that is not their context. On external sources: that can be helpful...it can also be neutral...and it can also be harmful if the voices around them have biases, ignorance, pride, etc that get in the way of reaching the person. It can also be a problem if one relies too much on external sources to figure out what you should be doing within your personal stewardship. Or one assumes you can't disagree or say no to a leader's advice or guidance. I'm not opposed to external sources. Heck for many I've been an external source. But others have varying experiences that can make this not as much of a slam dunk when managing complex issues. I believe I've mentioned before that I'm personally leery of relying too much on authority figures. This stems from my likely very different experiences in life than your own. So with the bold, this would not be the response I'd have. I would want to know where they got their idea, the evidence they held for it, how much their stewardship actually covers this area they're coming to me about, and my degree of trust in the person/how well they actually know me to give me said advice or caution. And I won't take it as something I should do unless there's something outside of them (aka the Spirit) backing it up. if some one gives me a stated assumption about god, life, or anything inbetween I instinctually seek for exceptions. In short this general orientation is not mine. It doesn't work for me and never has. When I'm nudged to follow it I can grow resentful. I'm not pointing this out to say I'm right and your wrong. Both likely have strengths and weaknesses. I'm saying it to not that the same orientations (active members) may have very different experiences, perspectives, and approaches to being such. Side note: I understand that yourself is the most accessible person to grasping concerns and such. But for this issue, it's not really about seeing if I would do what they did. But moreso if I can place myself into their circumstance and truly see the same thing as they do. I remember one of my first ex-lds clients that I had. I'd work extra hard to make sure they felt heard by this active LDS member....which meant diving deep into their experience. This one suffered from severe scrupolosity as a member bolstered by a family culture that promoted a more rigid interpretation of religious practice. It caused them to crack, big time. I remember thinking that if I had their experiences maybe I too could have ended up like them. But I didn't and still don't and so my story around faith ended up very different. I don't think their views are necessarily all together right. But that's also sorta the point. On the last point the secrecy or slow reveal of a "taking a break" doesn't tell me much. People do it for a dozen reasons dependent on their cirucmstance. Covenants, temples, commandments, ritual, theology, etc. You name it and I can probably think of an example of someone I've known or needed to work with. I'm only so much speaking on abstractions. The concept may be, but its based on many people that I've known and often been there to help. With luv, BD
  11. I didn't take her analogy so literally. I had a professor who used contemplating a divorce like contemplating an amputation...there may be circumstances that it's necessary but it shouldn't be your go to for a broken leg. I don't take this or BB's analogy to mean there will be physical damage from separating. I also am not picturing something like too much genealogy work. That would better suit your analogy. I'm picturing some of the messier experiences. Severe scrupulosity, certain forms of trauma that at points had religious implications or concerns, toxic community cultures where they've lost sight of what they actually believe in the expectations of a rigid local community, a system of rigid/maladaptive beliefs about their faith, experiences of depression, anxiety, or other things are skewing religious experiences to be extremely difficult, Family ruptures that leave church painful for a while. Etc. In these cases it's not just that a part of a religious experience has gone a little too far or run a muck, but that large swaths of a church experience has become sources of pain, disorder, and grief that may be simply intolerable for a time. Until other parts start to heal, a break sincerely may be a needed step to something healthier than what they currently are in. For some that break may need to be long term. Obviously I don't think all or even a majority of cases are like that. But I think people would be surprised by how common these experiences can be. And it's impossible to tell if theirs is more the type of your mothers or more the type of something seriously out of step. Not until you're closer and can dive more into their story. I can picture and have seen people assume a position that they're "taking a break" from church in these circumstances more than once. With luv, BD
  12. It may depend the degree of problem. For many of the ones I was thinking of (which bb was responding to) cancer would still be a fair analogy. As in the routine, perspectives, relationships they had around church were super unhealthy and needed a more extreme solution to manage it. If you stuck with the exercise or dietary habits, the would be ones that were starting/had an extremely imbalanced form of routine or beliefs around this that was at the very least out of balance (doing too much or rigidly following an elaborate plan) or veering to straight up disorder. note: these are not all cases of people who leave or “take a break.” I’m not sure what percentage i’d consider them, since one likely wouldn’t know without being really close to their difficulties with church. I’ve just seen them enough to recognize that sometimes it’s a blessing “take a break” to stop unhealthy patterns around one’s religious practice. These would not be ones who following the analogy just decide hiking isn’t for them and swimming’s a better fit. with luv, BD
  13. Or that he'd simply share the gospel in his general life online. Every member a missionary and all that jazz...
  14. Yeah I've never heard that and my blessing personally doesn't look like that. (it's 2 pages back and front...so 3.3 pages all together). Once you get that long blessings do tend to get more specific and mine also tends to have some repetitious language. So either short and succinct are super relative or that may not be consistent advice....or that advice has changed recently. What's generally in a blessing has shifted over the years. Personally I'm glad my PB doesn't fit that. My PB doesn't directly give me guidance per se, but it's been a source of guidance and support at important points in my life. I would prefer a Patriarch just prepare themselves spiritually, we understand that something may not come to pass as we initially picture them, and that length doesn't say much about who you are as a person or the importance of your mission. But it's also not my stewardship so I don't really care one way or the other. With luv, BD
  15. It may not be fully comparable but personally my experience with it has given me greater compassion for those who may need to step away for less obvious reasons. Early on when everyone took a big step away from church, I received a small prompting from the spirit that told me we would not be going to church in person for a while. I assumed at the time it was for several weeks, maybe months. It’s been over 2 years since I’ve fully attended my meetings in person. We don’t do Sunday school and there isn’t an option to attend online in my ward, I’ve been more or less active with my calling depending the pandemic numbers, no matter what my stake/ward is currently doing. My reason is obvious so we don’t get direct pushback. I also miss fuller community beyond just the girls/leaders in YW. This break won’t last much longer past my daughter getting her shots. But I also have seen the difference between my personal worship patterns and my church version. And it’s increased my empathy to paths that look very different from my own…where God may be just fine with them taking a break. with luv, BD
  16. I think it depends what one interprets or takes those covenants to be. I’ve met more than my fair share of people who had very unhealthy relationships with these. When they “took a break” from this, it was in some ways better…their beliefs were more often fueling terrible patterns they couldn’t seem to shake and left them stuck in a lot of unnecessary pain. Not growth, not development, just damning pain. “Taking a break” often gave them space to fix more important things IMHO than what they’d come to see as their commitments to church. Of course I would have loved to see them find a course that means the break wasn’t needed. I’ve also met many who were able to rearrange their assumptions and beliefs around it without leaving. But for me I’d rather them be able to find some form of health and truth out of church than be stuck in a false understanding of their covenants in church. We’re here to learn and grow, enduring is supposed to be apart of that process…and in the circumstances I mentioned, they’re often doing neither. Therefore enduring is just remaining stuck in a poor understanding of self, god, and their relationship with others. It’s setting themselves up to fail. So I find myself sweating less at least some of those who choose a “break” short, long, or permanent. with luv, BD
  17. Man, I missed this somehow when scanning topics. I'm on 1.....though 1 is over simplified. It's access + amount of guns + lack of regulation of current gun owners etc. Honestly it seems somewhat dumb to pretend otherwise. Dumb's probably a strong word. But I find those who are most resistant to looking at the problem of gun ownership in the US are usually those who benefit or are strongly adjacent to gun cultural narratives that are propped up to maintain not really acknowledging the cost of said gun ownership as we currently maintain it. Of course a person could say the reverse to me. Though I'm not that far removed from gun owners (my parents are ones, as sibling is, and a few of my friends I believe, for example) I personally will never own a gun. The rest are not very distinctive from other countries. Other countries have far lower religious intonations in public or private life....and don't have the same degree of gun violence problems. Other countries have violent video games....and don't have high gun violence Other countries have similar percentages of single-parent households....and don't have high gun violence. No developed country, has this degree of gun violence. Some have greater access....but this access is still often more regulated. And none have as high of quantity of guns. Regulate guns/slow production and sales/re-sell to regulated 3rd parties, reduce gun ownership to those who can safely manage and store guns/have no current red flag issues (suicidal ideation, history of violence, recent criminal record etc), reduce or remove access to certain types of guns, and have a system in place that insists on renewal of permits to maintain gun ownership....and I'd be shocked if our current numbers today in homicide, suicide, and mass shootings stayed the same. With luv, BD
  18. I know nothing of Kurt lewin (that I’m aware of). My picture of enmeshment comes from when I was in my masters program and they showed us this grid: this was focusing on family/systemic relationships specifically, but I still see it applying to people’s experience of faith. After all, what we assume of our faith often starts at home and then branches out as we grow. I should note that this doesn’t mean that where there’s major overlap between categories of church, tribe, culture, and people, that this automatically assumes it must be enmeshed. It’s not. I’m thinking more ones that I’ve met who’ve moved this overlap into the “high dependency, high ‘we,’ and high loyalty” spiritually. Where any exploration of different opinions, even within the church’s frameworks make them uncomfortable or resistant. Or on the more chaotic enmeshed side where doing something wrong leads to excess over correction. It doesn’t happen all the time…or even most the time. But it does happen and I would assume the more one’s world is heavily one thing the easier it is to slip into a more enmeshed relationship. on the other note, disengagement to me is equally unhealthy and according to some sources harder to correct. I could believe it from what I’ve seen. Personally I came from a family that entailed chaotic enmeshment and my natural urge veered to counteracting that by disengaging a lot. Finding a comfortable middle was hard and at times painful. But immeasurably rewarding. I don’t want to psychoanalyze you and if it feels like that, please feel free to ignore it, but from what you describe to your degree of independence/avoiding deep connections it kinda sounds like disengagement. Which is why it sounds vaguely familiar for me. But again, it’s not mine to call, and I hesitate to say so since I don’t know you. Such a place though, it would make sense why most forms of deep communal identity would come off looking like and enmeshed relationship. with luv, BD
  19. If you read my above post, it probably isn't too suprising to know that when I'm with a person in this place, I usually dig deeper. My younger self may have tried to keep them here (maybe?)...but my current self marks from where they're at but still wants to help people get to a healthier outcome. This doesn't necessarily mean keeping them in the faith. A) I'm not that powerful B) it wouldn't be genuine if they did. But if someone's coming to me talking about concerns around, church, god, spirituality, or family...they don't come to me expecting a brief/light convo on it. With luv, BD
  20. I know this went down a different avenue, but this and your next post was very illuminating for me. Both of you and of a phenomenon I see in church compared to myself. With you (at least to me), your general POV makes more sense as your main values are influenced by your really loose affiliations in the world around you. It makes it easy to jump in and out of experiences but it also means you likely can’t see the value as much of cementing roots in one place and holding certain dogmas strongly (like eternal families, like a specific church being true or holding a unique divine authority). A Christian faith/walk is then defined through this lens. Which makes sense where the areas (particularly in LDS and catholic persuasions…but likely others) don’t make sense and the negatives to having cemented roots seem apparent. on to the church. The one’s I’ve seen struggle the most with leaving are the ones where these areas overlap heavily. When people, tribe, and culture are strongly affiliated with the first ID (church) leaving and changing beliefs…even beliefs within still a church construct can be excruciating or a prolonged difficult process. I’ve seen more than one who leaves but still holds pieces and feels a draws to their previous ID (sometimes good, sometimes bad). I've seen members within not struggle to cater their beliefs to better fit their needs/circumstance. This is by no means a universal experience though. My experience with the 4 areas is more complicated than that. I assume most are, but that could be my bias of projecting my own experience onto another. If I were to split mine it would look like this: church: LDS specific…but tied more to its spiritual foundations than a physical building or meeting place (the last 2 years especially have proved that to me, as our family does church more at home until our daughter is vax’d). I venture out and study and often find things to like/value in other faith traditions or churches, but my spiritual lens is inherently one that is LDS. In the scriptures I read for guidance, the beliefs I hold, and many of my most treasured spiritual experience have inherently LDS flavor to them. It long ago moved from the community I grew up in to the faith I proactively hold. Culture: This one is inherently mixed. Being raised lds is a part of it, but if I'm being honest, it's not a super prominent feature. At least in comparison to much of my family on my mother's side who come from a long line of members (about as long as you can go). But my culture is also east coast, irreparably US, influenced by varying ethnicities, and somewhat flexible to the context. I don't have a single prominent feature that overtly pins me. People who try, often get a little frustrated doing so and land on "weird," Because I don't properly exude the stereotype or box they most associate me with. Tribe: Since you name it as family, I'll probably do the same. Some of my family I'm loosely connected to but still fill a tie to...even beyond the veil. Such as my great-grandmother and woman I'm named after. My closest tribe I interact with regularly. My husband is my best friend, my daughter is my angel (and test of patience depending the day ). There is a sense of responsibility and meaningful connection to many beyond that though. Including several of my brothers, and maintaining a connection in general with many of my other siblings and my closer in-laws. I have several roles in my tribe and I take these seriously. There are tribe members I've chosen not to affiliate with...but those are few and for reasons of toxicity. My family Is primarily LDS, but by no means solely LDS...including my bio-dad and a number of my siblings at this point. People: This varies and is likely tied to forms of love, investment, and connection. My closest chosen people mesh with my tribe strongly...as an I consider them extension of family even if they're not blood related. Others are less so. These are ones that fit into categories of sharing ideas, interests, stories, and experiences. My people are all over the place; sometimes literally. Some are well educated, some are not. Some are young, some are old. None of my closest share a very similar background though my 3 oldest friends all have a strength I deeply value/gravitate to. Caring, helping, sharing, etc are inherent traits in my chosen peoples. From my standpoint, your definitions are in some ways familiar but in others very very different. The degree of emotional and personal independence is not my experience. At some point I may have had it more...in some ways I still do. But I value more healthy loving connection, a chosen value I've fostered most of my adult life. To extricate myself from my varying communities is not one of simply picking up and going to a spot that better suits me. It would be disentangling myself to some degree to parts of myself. In some ways it's not a full possibility. But what you described makes sense why it would for you. I guess one could describe this as enmeshment...but that seems more from the value context of someone who's life is strongly defined by independence. It's not for me. With luv, BD
  21. The list already exists medically. I'm not okay with a medical review board. The process when you add bureaucracy starts to get really gummed up and when you're dealing with life threatening conditions a week and even a day can be too long. I get the desire to regulate somethin you see as inherently risky/weighing human life. But I think that urge taken too far can inadvertently harm human life. DNA is my word to not the one completed and differential thing that the youngest embryo has with the oldest human being. Every other feature is something born humans either don't have at all anymore or are proto/immature/unformed versions of what it one day will be if everything goes right during gestation. On the bold, it's this value that interprets the science for you. it's not for me. To me this value is an extreme version of a generally true principle that when placed to an extreme can become a little ridiculous (again, to me). It remind me of when I went on a world religions study binge and briefly explored jainism. It's basic value that it centers many of its practices is to basically reduce harm done to the earth. It's a value I believe in and think we should have. But their practices can take this to an extreme of trying to reduce their impact to the point that nuns/monks will sweep paths in front of every step they take, wear masks to keep from inhaling bacteria, and the most extreme ones won't wear clothes and don't bathe to reduce killing and need for material goods. This version of a principle goes too far for me to continue to see its merit. This is how I feel with this view point. The basic principle I agree with, it's more extreme implications I don't. Valuing human life for me does not mean valuing and/or treating it the same. I can value a blind person and recognize a person who can't see shouldn't be allowed to drive or fly a plane. I can value human embryos without assuming they are equal in value and individual worth as a born human being. There can be a graduated assumption in both value, rights, available privileges, and social function. My view is inherently complex and differentiated because the balance of values change as the embryo does and the women's contexts shift. It doesn't, though I can see how it could. I have a graduated orientation of value on the human embryo/fetus. It's based on likelihood for life/ensoulment, capacity to live autonomously, and is cross-weighed by the concerns and issues facing the woman. A prenatal fetus further along has far more consideration in my context than say a zygote in a petri dish in some fertility clinic. But neither have the same consideration and definite rights/existence of a newborn. It becomes more questionable, though not settled, to me the further along a fetus has developed that a soul hasn't formed (ie. spirit+body or in scientific terms consciousness/ability to fully experience in a bod). This still doesn't fully outweigh that they are existing via another's body who's life is therefore more important than its own, since it's capacity to fully exist and develop physically is not completed or assured without the continued health and safety of the woman's. A shift in the woman's health and body can mean drastic shifts in the fetus' physical capacity in ways that even if the woman is never present in their life again, can stay with them forever. Once a fetus is born and becomes an undisputed baby with true bodily autonomy that calculus shifts again. At this point there are several viable options that allow a fetus to continue whether or not the woman does and no matter the degree of physical/mental health impairment. It's only highly morally problematic if my moral calculus was more like moral addition and subtraction. It's just not that simple for me. It changes as new variables are added...and it will likely change again as unknown variables continue to change the lanscape/understanding around these same topics. With luv, BD
  22. Sorta. It should be noted that this is again an ethic journal paper...not a scientific research one. It also should be noted that the paper relies heavily on the unknowability of fetal experience compared to that of an adult. That is technically true. Of course that's true of just about all scientific inquiry...very little is ever fully settled. One can't be fully certain about something that at least to some degree is perceived...but it also runs into the limitation of subjective interpretation on what is defined as pain in the first place, among other things. If you're wanting an amorphous discourse about the potential of pain different from that experienced in newborns or at least later pregnancy, than this works. If you're wanting current scientific consensus, I found this: With luv, BD
  23. Ok, I disagree. The wiggle room (which to me is fairly limited) is namely the problem of actually legislating and who decides one's risk to life is high enough. A small example. Hyperemesis Gravadarum can be higher risk in pregnancy without being extremely life threatening. But in an individual situation it could be. I knew a woman who went through a series of difficult pregnancies. The first was ectopic and caused her complex grief/trauma (she had fertility issues on top of this), the second came almost right after the first and included serious HG. She was eating almost nothing. The docs were f-ing up essential treatment and she was risking early labor. Each added weak was a miracle. The prolonged trauma was messing with her capacity to connect with her current pregnancy and her family supports were dropping balls. She was a mess...but she made it and she had her baby. Then she had a pregnancy scare and believed for a hot minute she got pregnant while still having a newborn. If she was pregnant, her life would have seriously been at risk. But HG would not make it on a generic list for viable risk to life. The general causes for high risk are fairly well known, but the individual circumstances that make pregnancy down right frightening would likely be missed at some point. This is why I would prefer a general guiding principle and leave it in the hands of doctors and patients to decide. It wouldn't be perfect, but IMHO it would be better than a following a more rigid set of parameters. Soon after writing my last post, I ended up listening to a podcast episode that encapsulated some of the problems in communication we're having with this. The basic gist of the podcast is giving a brief summary on just about every common argument around this and the problems with each of them as well. What I see you inferring is a "species membership" orientation. Or in other words that embyros are a part of the human species and thus should have human rights to at least life...and we should strive for equality as much as possible in treatment when it comes to protecting said life (they talk about this argument around 20 minutes in). Or that the humanness of an embryo is objective and thus the best/most reliable imperative to measure how we determine a right to life. I don't. Agreeing on the science is not the same as agreeing on the moral framework of this, and that's the problem we're having. I agree that an embryo is a human being when the term human being is used in the scientific term of homo sapien sapien. When I use the term human being though, I'm not talking about a scientific stance, but a social one. And the fact that an embryo is human is nowhere near sufficient for me to assume personhood or equity in treatment to born humans. Not morally, not socially, not legally, not emotionally/psychologically. When I'm talking around the issues of abortion, IVF, miscarriage, pregnancy, etc...unless I'm specifically talking about something related to technical function of an embryo/fetus, I'm using human being in a colloquial sense and in the terms of social/moral orientation that ties more to the practical implications not just the technical ones. In short I use it more in line with personhood concepts, not scientific ones. I prefer different scientific terms to more clearly differentiate this and thus don't generally use the term "human being" in these forms of discussion. Because I don't tie nearly as much weight to the construct of having unique human DNA = human being beyond the parameters of scientific cateloguing, a lot after this fact falls apart really fast with some of your arguments for me. Proving that an embryo has unique human DNA doesn't tell me that there is a solid reason I should treat this nigh equal to the adult woman gestating the fetus. That is a moral/social position. One of many. All of which at some point, point at science to bolster their ideas. On the dependence thing, no one born is as dependent on a single human for existence like a fetus is. No one. "Complete" in this use is simply to note that the period of sole dependence is done. Not that dependence as a whole is. In one way or another we all are dependent on others. It's the point of being social creatures. But none of us born are at the same degree of dependence to the point that we literally can't exist without another human's body to support us. No non-viable fetus can live longer than a couple minutes without the use of a woman's body to maintain their existence. With luv, BD
  24. yeah, no. Definitely don’t agree. Pregnancy by it’s nature is it’s own form of risk. To be pregnant is to be at increased risk of morbidity, period. And though it’s more risky if you have certain risk factors, being low-risk is not a garuntee you’ll come away from the experience Scott free of complications. But honestly this paragraph I’m also having a hard time following your reasoning in general. Ok Without question a living individuated life. Individuated meaning, not completely reliant on another being to exist. In less flowery terms: the bread’s out of the oven. The kid’s been baked. That’s from your POV. Pithy was from mine. And note I said “direct consent” for a reason. Having sex is not a form of direct consent to having a baby. We understood that a human embryo is human life. I consistently stated that whether that fits the colloquial use of the term “human being” is one of ethical and philosophical debate. NOT science. with luv, BD
  25. I don't know if this is helpful or adding more mud in the mix, but I think I kinda know where @CV75is going. I haven't read as thoroughly and i still think it would be good for him specifically to clarify where he's going with this, but I've seen this mentioned briefly in a couple of places. The first is actually not about abortion at all, but climate change. There's a theoretical view that points to the idea that decisions around the environment should be weighed on not just immediate effect (like profit, or access to resources) but likely long term effects on coming generations. There's also been several law suits in a number of developed nations expecially from younger people that's basically suing governments and such for basically selling their future for immediate reward. Some of these have been successful. This second was when I was reading up on the act @pogireferenced in a post to me. The journal article touches on this law and the point about posterity mentioned int he constitution. Here is at least one part that relates And in a related footnote: Basically the state holds interest in potential human life. But that said what this means or should signify would really be dependent on one's world view. One could assume that having a greater quantity of children would be in the interest of the state and would be a version of maintaining posterity. But one could also say the increasing quality of life by reducing the numbers born into poor circumstances and increasing sustainable living both in families and things like the environment is also constitutionally appropriate by protecting and assuring a healthy future for posterity. Just pointing to posterity in the constitution doesn't say much without legal interpretation. With luv, BD
×
×
  • Create New...