Jump to content

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,626
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueDreams

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. On the first part, no comment. Most would be technical disagreements (accuracy thing again) and I'm not in the mood to go back and forth on technicalities On the docs, it's a matter of exposure and training to make a specific decision on the issue. The more specialized an area there tends to be better care if only from greater ethical training and knowledge of concerns pertaining to said field. Most later abortions would fall under this category and all super late ones would, from what I'm seeing be described. Pregnancy also exposes you to far more of the medical field than abortion does and thus more opportunity for error and the general nature of full term pregnancy is far more risky. Docs of any stripe are by no means perfect, but at least they're thoroughly trained and educated in this field. Politicians are almost entirely not and the policies made are based off of their assumptions or limited exposure to it. Even in less heated issues, politicians often make policy that's counter-intuitive or problematic on the professional side. I've seen that with some of the laws passed that regulate the mental health field. Which is why I'd prefer a basic bare min policy, preferably informed by actual experts in this that guide practices and for docs have more say than politicians on issues concerned with physical health. I would actually probably put the words debated, nuanced, or even contradictory moreso than vague. Different forms of human fetal life in different stages of development and different contexts are treated differently under law. Laws around stem cell research, IVF, the most restrictive laws still placing more weight on the life of the mother and often leaving at least some small window for exceptions based on say rape, as a whole point not to vagueness IMHO...but the very different status embryos and fetus have from a completed human being. Even the law that you mentioned was carefully nuanced to not weigh in on abortion when determining personhood for forceful/violent crimes. The context of forcing a loss on the woman, in effect, is considered than a woman coming to the decision to end a pregnancy. In large part because their personhood is inherently different from every born person. I saw a pithy quote today that I think captured this (i think based off of the famous violist analogy) "By outlawing abortion, we are giving fetuses rights people don’t have"...as in the right to exist via another's body without direct consent to do so. I have no idea whether they're pro-life. Again this isn't about vagueness per se, but the complexity of what entails personhood. This is taking on another (albeit incomplete) aspect that is deemed important: complex sentience and what degree of complexity means animals should have at least limited rights. This takes up a different aspect of potential personhood that pro-life arguments take up: which is unique human dna as therefore deserving of rights under human law. To be fair, I think it is an incomplete definition and that there likely needs to be a distinctive category for complex intelligent lives that are not human. Which is likely why they're largely failing as an argument in court. I would personally see a stronger case for the elephant than a rando company being a "person," personally....and at the very least a solid case for being more considerate of beings that are not human but still experience and exist on earth. The reason any of these are debates is because the parameter for complete/commonly understood personhood aren't fully met by any of them. Yeah, no. We've already debated that ad nauseum. What makes a human being a human being isn't that straightforward. Each group, from pro-life to pro-choice can use aspects of science to prove their point. Personally I find the most extreme orientations (super pro-life or super pro-choice) the least convincing in argumentation, namely because they tend to take only one aspect of what we generally deem as a human being and place that as the defining characteristic. With luv, BD
  12. I’m well aware that it leaves space both for push back and for interpretions I likely find too loose or too narrow. But it’s more likely to a) pass and b) have less national push back and will likely change the debate from one that’s less heated, less oversimplified, and less polarized. It’ll align more with what the majority vaguely supports. It would hopefully then lead to more meaningful discussions that have far larger effects IMHO, including in actually reducing the number of abortions. with luv, BD
  13. I was talking mainly of the low numbers for the scare image I've seen used to paint the open legality laws as "being able to abort a baby till the moment it crowns." Though I have serious concerns about this law, from all accounts that I can find, that's simply not what's happening. As I've mentioned more than once, i'm a stickler for accuracy. I want as accurate information being used when decided what should happen on the legal front. But yes, for the most part I've never been a fan for open ended abortions, especially once sentience becomes more and more likely (sidenote: I find the gestational age for some form of wakefulness kinda all over the place online...some say 3rd trimester some say late 2nd). Yeah, I'm missing some logical steps that gets to this conclusion. It's not the one I fully have. I've already mentioned the 3 points that inform my position on this topic. Post 20 weeks is a more obtainable goal where most will agree on it. BUT I personally would like to see that coupled with better preventative measures pre-pregnancy, better availability and access for all forms of services, including abortion in early pregnancy. This is tied to what I find potentially justifiable as well as being unwilling to force, whether directly or indirectly, a woman to remain pregnant if there's a reasonable means for them to not. Ironically, I'm more concerned about doctors failing women in healthcare practices dealing with pregnancy/labor and delivery than anything else. I've witnessed way too many stories of women's health concerns going unmet. The stats and current medical practices have led to a steady increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes, and indicate that there's more at risk with women's health from pregnancy than their is abortion. I This is strongly debateable on several fronts. But I'm not one to debate the nitty gritty of legal precedent and federal government guidelines. It likely isn't suprising that I would prefer medical practice in general have basic national standards that need to be met. It seems contradictory to me to insist the constitution is about protecting life and then not assuring basic expectations from an institution meant to specifically protect and save lives. Specific to a degree. Most the constitution at this point is interpreted. Some are loosely applied, some are more specific. I don't see there being an obvious guideline in law saying there must be specific or vague protections. As I mentioned, I'd rather have federal law give a baseline/parameter of protections and states be able to have some flexibility in implementing them based on their specific stat needs or desires. For example a baseline of "abortion services post 20 weeks for severe health concerns for mothers or fetus is legal" Different states can decide whether they interpret that more restrictively or loosely as to what is considered severe. Again, a person who does not live via another person has every right to life (barring extreme scenarios). A fetus/embryo does not have that inherent right. And for me the question isn't does a person with DS have a right to life, it's does a potential person with DS have an absolute right to be born, even if the parents (let's say earlier on, since testing can and does occur as early as 10 weeks) cannot care for them and our social supports for said families are often weak or inconsistent? If too many people choose abortion with DS, do we inherently lose something as a society by not having DS as commonly found in our communities? This leaves to really hairy ethical/social questions that I won't pretend to have the best answer to. This article captured a lot of my concern and ambiguity around this, though it's focused on Denmark (where they do have far better medical supports and the pressure is less on families who take this on). I'm weighing this not on a singular prioritized moral imperative, but at least 3 baseline ones mixed with at least 2-4 social implications that I'm trying to find balance on. I wish I could simplify this to a single one: life or choice, where the exceptions to ones prioritized moral code are few. It must be nice to be able to. But I can't and won't. *** for the record, in general post 20, I'd prefer DS not be a reason for abortion as it's not a severe enough abnormality. Pre 20....I'd still prefer it not happen solely for that, but I'm unsure it's ethical (within my moral framework) to insist on that either... and with things like IVF I think a parent has every right to screen out genetic disorders that would include significant impairment. As I mentioned, I've contemplated that option for myself and am very open to it and the version of disorder my daughter has is far less severe than DS in many ways. So I prefer not to be a hypocrite. With luv BD
  14. Yeah, by definition that's a bit of a closed-minded approach. It's not my job to insist you should be open minded. I have my own things I'm closed-minded to for my own reasons. Such as anti-vax for being stupid; hyper new age mantra that just sound like feel good messaging packaged as spirituality; fundamentalism of any sort for being too rigid, dogmatic, and antithetical to who I am; buying a new gas guzzling vehicle for it being antithetical to what we need in the future, etc. But honestly, I likely wouldn't have a closed mind on these topics without first understanding some of the premises to them. For other topics, I may still study them to understand why someone finds appeal in them. So I'm not that closed-minded that I wouldn't at least look a little to make sure I understand what it is and suggesting. Sometimes I've been pleasantly surprised to find things that were actually of some value. With luv, BD
  15. It's more like things. It helps to first note what the WoW points to. It first lays out why it's being given. It was both a means for "temporal salvation" for the weakest of all saints. And it was "in consequence of evils and designs" that "do/will exist in the hearts of conspiring men." Then it lays out the bulk of what to avoid and have in ones body and not just for our use but the use of nature, other animals, and creatures. All of these have seasons and reasons for use that should be honored and used wisely/with thanksgiving. So now back to industrialized farming practice. First it's often exploitative. if not to laborers and even smaller farmers, then also to the land. There's not a healthy balance in most practices between farms and local wildlife. And the effect often depletes or even poisons the land. it often creates fragile ecosystems or non-existant ones replaced by vast monocultures that are practically sterile of other forms of life. I struggle to see how this could be considered wise seems more in the "designs of conspiring men" looking to reap maximum profit. On another, much of our food production focuses on raising meat, directly or indirectly. This is to feed and has been promoted by industry subsidies and practices that keep meat cheap and maintain people's belief that they need a boat load of meat (or "protein" as many put it) to live healthily. The WoW puts meat largely in the supplemental, rare, or small amounts category. It's not "staff of life" that many take it to be in our culture. Food is often sold to us well out of season. I mean it's kinda in season somewhere, but to ship it from that far away usually entails plucking early to send 100's if not 1000's of miles away. WoW points to having things more in season...which would also mean fairly more local to accomodate that. Industrialized food markets sell the image of diverse foods, but rarely measure up. Much of the middle of our grocery store is given to food that's a) barely food anymore and b) often made from similar ingredients. WoW points to a broader use of herbs, grains, and fruits/veggies than most get. These are the main ones that come to mind. With luv, BD
  16. I didn't know they now ask questions about vaping. I'm sure they do, I just haven't paid close attention or had a need to know such things. That aside, I probably fall under the ease of following reasoning. These are more straight forward to follow. I also think it's a means to get people started on a course that's alligned with how God would like us to live both temporally and spiritually. Most of the temple recommend questions to me are meant to be more bare minimums moreso than exact perfection. Which is why a number were reworded to emphasize "striving" to live them than assume absolutely doing so (which is often how people were/are taking some....like the LoC). On a controversial note, I personally believe most people (at least in developed country that heavily rely on large scale farming) can't follow the WoW in its entirety. It entails a societal level shift in agricultural practices, not just in individual diet. In a community where the WoW was fully practiced, several industrial farming practices would likely get the boot too or at least drastically shift. Not that you can come fairly close, but unless you're in some form of small scale farming community and buy all things in their season and use meat extremely sparingly....you're likely a ways off from the WoW. Probably depends your reference point. I have little to no sweet tooth when it comes to added sugar. It happened slowly, and I used to have more of one. But I'm at the point that I prefer the taste of plain yogurt over sweetened and find even breads a little too sweet in the US (they're less sweet apparently in other countries). I can't handle most american desserts. With that reference point, the pop with a squirt of coconut syrup kinda sounds really gross. I tried a "dirty soda" with friends exactly once and I couldn't finish the drink. I think the closest analogy is picturing yourself scooping sugar or salt directly into your mouth. From my reference point there's nothing really wholesome (as in conducive to good health) by the average pop.* I don't think one's health is in jeopardy from just having a rare soda though. It's fun and people like them. It's just not reaching the definition of wholesome to me (conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being) *At this point my idea of soda is either taking lemon, mint, or something like it in a carbonated water or cutting a martinelli down with carbonated water....that last option I can still only do a little of before my body starts saying "too much" to the sugar. With luv, BD
  17. less common is a bit of an understatement. Extremely rare seems to be the best estimate when only 5 clinics offer the service and somewhere between 4-9 doctors likely practice. Heck if even 20 doctors practice that’s still really really really small. it’s ironically more likely to climb because barriers are going up in other states. It increases the likelihood that people will need to delay their abortion to travel and gain funds. These abortions are not cheap. of course it could also even out in the end and stay about the same, due to access of pill abortions being available via mail. It’s hard to fully project on the trend. But these will still likely be limited for some time to come based on the number of doctors who can actually perform the procedure. One can have something technically legal, but unless someone can do the procedure it’s a bit of a moot legality. There’s only so many procedures that can be done by a doc. I’m not disagreeing exactly. I’d rather maintain a simple regulation because it gets muddy fast and I rather have the state (federal or literal state government ) not be completely judging what situations should count or shouldn’t. don’t have one. I was randomly thinking about this while making a quick run to the store today. In front of me was an older couple with their adult daughter who had Down’s syndrome. On the one hand I don’t want to end up like Iceland where there’s practically no person with downs in the whole country. I’ve loved the people with Down’s syndrome I’ve Met. On the other hand, I know that this will be a life long challenge that will cost the family a ton of money, reduce the likelihood a child would be adopted if they felt they couldn’t care for said child’s medical/social needs, and will likely mean added support for the child for the rest of their life. Some families may not be able to handle that. i know with my daughter with her disorder, my husband’s extremely hesitant to have more than 2 with this disorder for the amount of work it takes to manage it and it’s nowhere near the degree of care needed for something like Down’s syndrome. More severe cases of what she has can include needed liver transplants and can cause young babies/children to die. I’ve thought of IVF if we can find the other half of the genetic code causing this if we end up with 2 kids with this and we want more. And I understand how someone may choose an abortion if they receive news that it’s likely a more severe case. So that’s a long way of saying I have very mixed feelings about that one. as I mentioned I’ve already stated I prefer a simple restriction policy that lays down basic guidelines for post 20 week abortions especially. There’s a reason I said I’m neither pro-life or pro-choice. Choice should be limited based on viability and developing personhood. You have more faith in the government to implement this…and that’s saying something. I’m by no means libertarian leaning. To me the more regulations around this specific concern the more likely things will go through the cracks of our poor foresight and it will heavily fall on the woman to bear the brunt of these mistakes. And that’s a lot of women’s lives who may suffer from severe impairment/cost and at times even death because we got the calculus a little off. with luv, BD
  18. I got curious and tried (fruitlessly, yet again) to find out if I can figure out the amount of super late abortions that happen. I still can't find it...but I did find 2 older articles that had some interesting accounts. The first noted as of 2016, there were only 4 doctors in the entire country that do abortions after 24 weeks. The second had this interesting account of talking to one of these doctors about the process of deciding to do said abortion from 2009 (when there were fewer than 10): For the record, I'm okay limiting later abortions to serious concerns of life and/or health of both mother and child. Due to their very specific nature I would not be okay with super specific bills that regulate too much what that means. The story of the woman who was extremely suicidal is a good example as to how something dealing with mental health can be just as extremely risky. With luv, BD
  19. Just for clarity I meant mostly 3rd trimester when I was talking super later term (or at least post 25 weeks). The picture I had was 3rd trimester. Those are the stats that I have the hardest time finding. The broader late terms (20-24 weeks) is easier to find and are a little broader in their reasoning (as in the reasons @pogi mentions). The later it gets, from what I’ve seen, the less “elective” it becomes. most late-term abortions still happen before 24 weeks ( in stats everything post this is said to be “less than 1%, which isn’t exactly specific). with luv, BD
  20. i once tried to find stats or numbers on this. It took forever and the number was in the 10’s per year. As in no more than double digits post viability/into the 3rd trimester. from what I could tell the circumstances around them were also likely more the extreme end of problems (life of mother, fetal problems). But I can’t find them now 😕 with luv, BD
  21. As seeking mentioned, it's strongly tied to primaries. Primaries play to your base....but not just the base, but the most politically active base who are willing to remember rando spring/summer dates to vote in the primaries. Most primaries don't allow you to participate in primaries unless you affiliate with the party (in UT, it's specific to the dominant party. Minority parties generally have open primaries if they have them at all). Once you get to the main election usually 2 candidates are locked in and based around political affiliation. More and more people vote mainly based on party affiliation and problems like gerrymandering and the likes further reduce the capacity for incumbents to be removed (this article says about 10% of house seats this year are considered competitive). Non-competetive seats usually take a major scandal to cause an upset. So What happens with say @SeekingUnderstanding's hypothetical is this: Person A is elected with an extreme view on abortion and fairly standard political party views (choose the party). They live in a non-competitive district (competitive ones will likely have more moderate candidates or will face tougher reelection if they upset their constituents with more extreme positions), so when it comes to election season again, they're relatively safe since those most upset with their extreme views is likely a minority voice in their population. Those who made a compromise to vote for this condidate may not feel strongly enough about this specific issue and will say "Well it could be worse....it could be candidate b who is way too {fill in political party or ideological bend" even if candidate b is actually fairly moderate. So they keep "holding their noses" for a candidate based on what they view as values closer to their own, ignoring the problems with said Person A that don't align and person A keeps getting elected inspite of views that are non-representative of their actual electorate. There's things that are being introduced to try and break up this problem, like rank choice voting (my town in UT just tried this for their local elections) and by having independent redistricting boards. Both are slow growing and/or finding problems in implementation. (tried to keep this as non-partisan to describe a political question ) With luv, BD
  22. Based on my reading of scripture lust = deeply desiring/seeking something or someone that is not ordained by god for you to have. I don’t connect lust simply to sexual lust and I also don’t see list the same as sexual attraction with luv, bd
  23. Okay. We’re clear then. So you can now address my other points or move on. I’m really done talking about this single tiny semantical point. with luv, BD
  24. I think the common adage about abortions being for “convenience” can be a little diminutive. When I picture this, I picture a young adult in college hailing from a middle class home who likely has options in support and no other children. For this person, a baby would be difficult to balance…it may short term pause her plans…but it likely would be doable. But I think this ignores the real struggle for financially strapped families. Or other concerns that are not that straight forward and where convenient is a real stretch in the definition. I’m not just talking about the ones we generally view as justifiable (life of mother, fetal abnormalities, rape). But sticky ones like getting off or currently abusing drugs/alcohol, prolonged poverty, difficulty supporting the kids they do have, malnutrition, high stress/low health/low support situations that increase the general risk of pregnancy. And though this is improving since the ACA and reduction of the 08 recession, there are still problems with access to birth control and general knowledge about contraceptive options, particularly among the poor. I don’t know if this is enough moral justification…but I think we do a disservice in describing this a matter of convenience when, in the US at least, abortion strongly correlates with poverty. Where it largely ties with being unable to pay for basic necessities. To me there’s nothing convenient in being between a rock and a hard place. with luv, BD
  25. to me it just shows a lack of real knowledge of what happens in our legal system when someone is raped. We have so many problems with the current system in just reporting rape because of its intrusive nature and tendency to re-traumatize. So many where it takes weeks to accept what happened to them. anyone with basic knowledge/experience of this process would automatically be super hesitant if not outright repulsed by the idea. I sure am. With luv, BD
×
×
  • Create New...