Calm

It’s more “literalist modern” reading because 200 or 500 years ago they would not be the same “literal” interpretations.

I get why there is the impulse to go through one scripture book each year and I also get having lessons set up so even new members can feel at home and like they have something to contribute to class discussions, but what is really standing in the way of slowing down and taking two years or even three and four to go through each book? If they fear boredom or falling behind will cause people to give up and drop out of the reading program and therefore it’s better to reset at the beginning of each year on a new book, repetition can be massively boring as well. PS: I hadn’t read Rain’s post before writing this one. We may not have trained teachers for this level of detail in each ward, but we have wonderful faithful scholars who would likely be very willing to put together books for additional context and discussions under direction of inspired leaders, both of whom would be great examples to members who are concerned about what might happen to their faith if they dig into the details. A effort similar to Saints perhaps, though less narrative and more explanation of cultural practices, ancient symbolism, etc. and perhaps a variety of faithful responses, such as some who take scriptures literally and others symbolically and even those who see error in them, but still value what insights that can give to us. I can see a version of perhaps how not to treat the gospel and God as our way to rationalize our bad behaviours (by laying them on God or some other uncontrollable influence that forces us to do something we know is wrong, corrupt, harming others, but would benefit us financially, like taking advantage of or even mistreating of employees or customers or family and friends).

My sentiments as well.

Late term abortions, of which there are not millions just in case you were intending to imply that, are typically when there are congenital problems with the fetus. Not as many want to adopt a special needs baby that is likely to die quite young or need constant care for as long as they live.

Then why waste everyone’s time and money with the federal Act banning them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Would you trust antimormons on their say so claiming extreme things about LDS?

Oh, my husband is going to be pissed. He decided to go shopping rather than putting it off till afterwards. PS: Gopher, I think I might end up posting endless posts to your potentially endless responses on infallibility if one of us doesn’t consciously break the cycle because you have a way of making me want to continue the conversation (which is a very good thing in my view). I think I have made all the points I want to make and it would just be likely repeated variations on this sub theme of what I think makes for a more resilient faith in the Gospel and Christ. Iow, I don’t feel like I am saying anything new and thinking it must be annoying to read, so unless there’s a point you want to explore more, I think I will step back for now at least.

From the link…add the ten years of sustained effort in trying any treatment available including ECT (which helped my daughter’s depression a great deal, but also messed with her memory big time which has increased her anxiety) and her experience since early childhood, this was not an impulsive decision by a woman who just doesn’t want to bother with life. If I had to choose pain or the constant feeling of disaster, uneasiness, fear, nausea, tension, etc that is chronic anxiety eating at my soul, I will say give me the pain (I will also take depression over anxiety). I have finally found a medicine that has removed the constant erosion of any sense of joy or happiness and I struggle anytime I consider that some day it might stop working or I might have to come off of it.

Perhaps it’s my experience with FAIR as well as other places where individuals discuss how they used to view prophets before they had their faith crises. I see massive damage occurring right now because of the view that prophets are practically infallible even if not technically. I tend to think we should deal with what’s happening now and try and resolve it in a way that inspires faith over a wide range of scenarios. It would be unfortunate if that means later most members won’t follow the prophet when he asks us something hard, but the ideal would be people develop the habit of receiving their own spiritual witnesses and would do the same in this case. I am also not sure if viewing prophets as practically infallible actually would help members endure particularly difficult requests/commands. Seems without a personal spiritual witness to hold on to (which could be of the prophet’s calling even if one doesn’t view him as infallible, just the man God wants as his spokesman, but I think it’s better to have faith in the work and the gospel, which will then encompass much, if not all of one’s relationship with the prophet), burnout could set in quicker once obstacles are hit. I base this on people watching, including what happened to many members when COVID hit and the Prophet shut things down and promoted vaccines. It wasn’t in my experience the individuals who had nuanced views of the Prophet and his role, who had already questioned whether he was trustworthy and came to terms with him being fallible in a way that worked for them, who started questioning whether the Church had fallen into apostasy or not.

Used in the past when they were not illegal? Certainly, the stats (which I don’t know how reliable they are) suggest percentages were quite low, less than .2% iirc, that would mean numbers were still at least a couple of thousand. I see any occurrences as unacceptable. I don’t see what difference it would make to the mother’s health to deliver an intact newly dead fetus or a live one. Willing to be educated, but it would take some massive data to change my mind on this. Therefore, the fetus should be allowed to live and the mother give up custody rights if she is unable or unwilling to raise it (though I would heavily prefer a third option of substantial financial and other aid for mothers and young children so that less women feel the need to abort or give up their children if they would prefer to raise them). Procedures used now in abortion clinics disguising them as legal procedures…seems unlikely and very stupid as these clinics already have a big target on them and I suspect there are people watching them like hawks. But people are stupid, so it might be happening somewhere in the US. There are probably illegal ones occurring if it’s an easier procedure for the illegal practioner as there are no doubt some doing those strictly for money. Hopefully both types are caught and imprisoned.

From abortion advocates or anti-abortion advocates?

Some of the facts are wrong, though quite a few are accurate. The government did not approve MAiD being offered to vets inquiring about other issues, the vet department does not offer the service and they are supposed to refer to the primary care doctor if it gets brought up. That was misconduct on the part of one employee on four occasions according to documentation when claims had names attached and weren’t just rumors. The department had significant training and followed up with vets, sounds like the error is unlikely to happen again. Other instances of promotion are anecdotal, individual which may or may not be accurate and is not evidence of an official promotion. https://veterans.gc.ca/sites/default/files/maid-investigative-report.pdf? Having said that, it’s quite concerning. (Serious here) ——— an afterthought…. Who knows, maybe sometime in the future Canada’s deaths by legal suicide may even catch up to the US deaths by illegal firearm suicide, though it has a massive gap to close. (Also serious here, but also being caustic)

Based on my 13 years of living in Canada and hearing Americans report on what was happening there, I don’t trust American reporting of Canadian events. The reverse is true as well, I don’t trust Canadian reports of American events. Do you have a Canadian source, preferably one with less bias and therefore less likely to inflate or deflate events reporting the details (centrist Iow)

No, I am asking for evidence that this is inevitable which is what you appear to be claiming. I don’t think you can demonstrate this, definitely not easily, but I think I can show that the slippery slope doesn’t always apply. For example, when abortion was made legal in the US, some argued that it would lead eventually to murder of children on demand (my phrasing) or similar results. But instead it’s gone the other way in many places, restrictions are tightening up. So pressures can cause either a loosening of restrictions or reversing course and adding more restrictions.

I was expressing myself poorly because I believe, probably differently than many or most others, that if one knows a medication will kill someone and gives it to them anyway no matter why, that is having the intent to kill the person even if it’s a side effect so to speak. I believe it is ‘intent to kill’ even if not the primary intent because one can choose to not kill the person by withholding the treatment. So I would phrase the question now as ‘can you think of any circumstances where you would consider an infant’s earlier death as acceptable, such as due to drugs given to relieve extreme suffering while knowing death will also occur?’ The mercy shown is the giving of drugs for comfort, not the killing. Their death is the tragic, but acceptable cost for acting in mercy to give relief. Does that make sense? Not saying it’s wrong to see it differently, I am just explaining why I think I was confusing people by choosing the language I did. I will try and explain the situation I am curious about one more time, though I am hoping I did it well enough in the above. If it’s still too confusing to people I will drop it after that. Point 1: A terminal patient is suffering in extreme discomfort and pain. Doctors have given him significant levels of painkillers, etc during the time he has been treated. This has led to an increase of tolerance of these drugs needing to raise the dosage, even with all the efforts to alternate between drugs and to keep them at the lowest working dose. Point 2: But between the tolerance and the symptoms getting worse, they have now reached the point where the levels of the drug that will be needed to give any relief will also cause suppression of breathing and other effects such that death will shortly follow, very shortly, likely within an hour, maybe even minutes of giving the medicine for relief. Point 3: The choice is now between relief/comfort for a short time and then death at the end of that period or extreme discomfort and continuing life until death naturally occurs. (This is not an uncommon situation even for infants as demonstrated that there is a policy about it) My question…is it acceptable to give lethal levels of drugs if for the purpose of relief even though you know death will follow not long afterwards? Aside: The medication can be called “lethal” even if its purpose is comfort, imo. They talk about lethal doses often taken accidentally, so intent seems to be irrelevant for the most part imo when defining if a medicinal dose is labeled lethal or not.

CFR please. This ignores imo that there are pressures to prevent expansion, both social and legal. In some places it will expand, others it won’t. Serious question as I am curious as to how you are framing these ideas (there is a large range of assumptions that have been attached to pro abortion and antiabortion positions, neither are monolithic, so I must asked for details to understand your actual position). Do you believe that pushing for religious freedoms always expands and therefore some in such groups will eventually be pushing for to a theocracy? Pushing for gun freedoms always continue to expand till there is no regulation at all? No legal limits? Or is there some sort of social or self regulation that will occur? If you don’t believe it will expand for the last two, why would it expand for the top? If you believe that it will always expand no matter what position it is, why don’t we have either anarchy or a total tyranny at this point (mankind being around for a number of millennia at least)?

I am not being clear…do you believe the below is a moral approach to end of life care, especially the bolded part? https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/149/5/e2022057011/186860/Guidance-for-Pediatric-End-of-Life-Care?

That is misrepresenting what I am doing. You made a specific claim (advocates of natal killing up to the age of 8 are out there among the pro choice activists) and have not given any documentation. Even the one reference you gave said she saw later abortion as needing to be restricted to some degree as she describes herself as a “moderate” in terms of “the moral status of late abortion”. She is not advocating for abortion on demand for any reason for more developed pregnancies. I have no reason to soft pedal partial birth abortions, which I view as immoral and am glad it’s been banned in the US for over 20 years. Why would I soft pedal something I view as horrendous? The descriptions I have used are of actual cases I have heard about, not going to be able to provide a source since the info was shared by family and friends for the most part, but also some documentary I can’t remember the title of (too many years ago) on end of life care So CFR still stands and now you need to demonstrate it’s frequent advocation among pro choice advocates for killing inconvenient children, which is going to take a lot more than one source not saying what you want it to say.

I am okay with you holding that position. It’s a strong, highly moral position in my opinion. Can you accept that others might weigh quality of life as a higher measure of morality than just life itself such that they believe there needs to be a minimal level of quality of existence and if that is absent, they don’t see it as loving to let an infant or an adult unable to decide for themselves continue in extreme pain or other significant discomfort even for a few more hours? That this too can be a loving moral decision and those advocating for family working with doctors needing to have the right to decide in extreme cases are not hard of heart and selfish? After all, in the cases I am thinking of (both theoretical and actual occurrences) it was not a continually changing boundary of when should it be allowed, but there were or would be well established rules that must be followed in order to even consider euthanasia from the way I have heard it discussed by actual doctors talking about making decisions in end of life care, where providing comfort can too often mean hastening death due to tolerance of pain drugs from long term use. Claiming such positions leave open the possibility of murdering children for any reason (slippery slope) isn’t anymore realistic than the argument that restricting or banning abortions will lead to greater control over women’s bodies to the point of banning of any form of contraception, fertility treatments, or even the ability to refuse to have sex with one’s husband if he claims he wants to do so to have children. Or that expanding religious protections is going to lead to a theocracy.

Do you not understand that painkillers and other medications that suppress consciousness also suppress other body functions and therefore can cause death? I had a nice lesson (I actually had to take a class on it, they provided extensive details on research and real situations, they didn’t intend to scare the hell out of us with the presentation; anyone paying attention to the starts didn’t need anything else to feel that way, imo) on potential of overdosing by mistake—due to medication I take—and on how combinations of drug can raise the risk so much higher than drugs alone. It doesn’t take much for an adult. Pediatric doctors and nurses should get paid the big bucks imo because margin of error is generally much less for smaller bodies. As far as drama goes, let’s not forget what started this. I am not the one trying to attach “post natal killing” to abortion advocates to turn them into monsters. And then acting like a scholar talking theoretically about “rarely justified infanticide” was actually advocating, promoting being able to kill kids at will until the age of 8…I believe that was the claim. Removed a relatively irrelevant paragraph

When one uses “rarely justified” that points to the extreme cases, doesn’t it?

I am assuming it’s not a black and white situation for you and you are thinking of cases where the infant could at least be made comfortable while it was allowed to die on its own. But there can be cases in my understanding where effective painkillers could not be given because the med would suppress breathing enough to kill the child, so giving the med is effective an instant death sentence when not giving it could allow it to live for many hours, days, possibly even weeks but in significant pain, unable to be comfortable or comforted. Would you not accept it might be more moral in that type of case to kill the infant through giving the painkiller?

You really can’t think of any case you think it would be a gift to an infant to die? Do you think it is a higher morality to allow an infant to continue to suffer for days, weeks, maybe even a month or two even in circumstances where they are clearly unable to understand why they are in pure agony or dying of an incurable disease/disorder, though their life can be prolonged for a few additional days by feeding and breathing tubes, but the result is they are struggling to breathe in between their screams of pain that are more like whimpers because of exhaustion and the tube up their nose, their frail body taped down to prevent tubes from pulling out and fragile skin from tearing just by rubbing on the sheets. Not even able to be picked up or touched to show they are not alone because that would just add to the pain, no lights or sounds for the same reason.

You really can’t think of any circumstances where it might be better for an infant to die sooner rather than later and therefore you would make the move to kill in mercy even if you were haunted by it the rest of your life if you did it…because you would feel more guilt to let the child suffer, possibly alone, not understanding why? Are you claiming the standard “rarely justified” is advocating?

Quote and context please. Talking about philosophical implications is not the same as advocating. The title itself seems to indicate she sees them as morally different, iow she is not advocating for infanticide or homicide (the more technical and precise term for your “post natal killing”, which could apply to accidental death). The first page I read indicated she viewed infanticide as different than abortion and very different from early abortions (still different but closer in late term, but still possibly viable abortions) and is definitely not advocating for infanticide in general and likely in my view only justifies it in extreme medical conditions where quality of life would be horrendous and no chance of a “good life”. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8519.00202 From what I see in no way does this fulfill the CFR. In fact, it does the opposite of what you claim. So odd that you would cite her. Not quite philosophy, but along the same lines…I can talk about the implications of my divorcing my husband to explore consequences and yet have no intent, desire and definitely not be advocating for my divorcing my husband or anyone else divorcing theirs. Thought experiments are not advocation.