Calm

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.

I doubt that.

Just in case anyone wants to look more deeply into the Second Anointing, Mormonr has collected a lot of source material and summarized the info here: https://mormonr.org/qnas/5y13H/second_anointing I found this particularly interesting: —— Not sure this second query’s link will work. If it doesn’t, just type “calling and election” into the search bar and quite a few references will pop up that can be read to see if they give any enlightenment on the subject for you (speaking generally). https://bhroberts.org/archive?prod_records[query]="calling and election"

You will have to point that out rather than just slapping a label on it. It seems pretty straight line to me. Curious if you claiming the Church accepts the necessity of elective murder at times? That leadership views any abortion for any reason as elective murder?

Is there any way in your view to personally verify there is a God? If so, why couldn’t one use the same process to verify other things?

I think there is more than enough evidence they are not infallible (added: it’s in scripture as well as them admitting it from time to time plus obviously wrong comments, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Fielding_Smith_acknowledge_that_he_was_wrong_when_he_said_that_Man_would_never_walk_on_the_Moon%3F ). The question is, imo, how much God micromanages, if he does, the errors so it may only be trivial, little impact decisions that God keeps a hands off policy for or major, life altering, church culture altering errors that he allows (possibly to keep agency intact as much as possible) or somewhere in between, exactly where might even varied due to circumstances.

Yeah, I knew what it was referring to. I was being snide. Lumping in pro abortion with post natal killings is ridiculous though, by (I suspect extremely few if there are actually any) advocates of the idea or anti abortionists who are often trying to make pro choice advocates look like monsters.*** It’s a very different dynamic since the child can be removed without harm from the custody of its mother. Talk about ultimate parental rights. Post natal killing can occur through malnutrition and lack of access to healthcare, firearm access, lack of sufficient safety measures in car seats, etc by the way. (There are a number of avoidable reasons the US is choosing not to avoid for why infant and child mortality rates in the US are higher than most, if not all for some causes of comparable countries.) ***https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/virginia/trump-debate-fact-check-virginia-governor-after-birth-abortion-ralph-northam/291-9bf4d577-863f-4f31-9e63-11c55cdada53?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Are we doing family photos? Here’s mine, what a coincidence we went to the same photographer…. (Sorry about the plagiarism, hit the limit, so tweaking only went so far)

But are they on the Church records as members?

You mean the SNAP cuts? Didn’t think it was that high.

I think that depends on the person. I do hold that position. My belief and trust in prophets has only grown with my knowledge that includes quite a few major mistakes imo. I can have strong disagreements with someone and still think they are wise, good people. My husband is one of them. Our political views are at times very different, yet I have never seen any reason to consider divorce because of it and I even still take his advice in many things and accept that in some areas it’s best he make the decision just as in other areas he has me make the decision as the better informed. Might see the leaders I believe as having made mistakes as having blind spots, iow human. I find there is a lot less anxiety having this position about my leaders than not because I don’t have to defend or try to find valid reasons for things I believe are wrong and then being concerned if I can’t find them. The Church is run on earth by humans like me even though God is overseeing it all. If God can work with them and still turn the Church into his great work to help mankind towards salvation even with their missteps, he won’t likely be casting me out as unworthy for the mistakes I have made. That is a very good reason in my view to stay committed and keep trying.

This is the definition that seems most applicable to the claim Sunstoned made. He can tell us if this is what he was thinking. Otoh, I do see “exmormon” now often expressed as an identity in many cases rather than simply a record keeping note (as in at one time attended Forest View Elementary and now I don’t…no identity attached to that as I was there less than a year, only thing I remember is my teacher and a girl stapled her finger in class, wouldn’t rate more than a line in my biography) and that does seem to entail more than just cutting a mental connection. But I would never use it this way without mentioning the definition I was giving it. I have seen a lot of people online mention their family as attending, but say they were never really into the Church, the basic implication (sometimes actually expressed) is they were never Mormon in their minds and therefore aren’t now exmormon.

I would like to see the logic demonstrating this is the most reasonable definition in this context as I find it hard to believe anyone here actually defines “exmormon” as “hangs out with other exmormons online and off socially” or some such thing anymore than one would define believing LDS as only those who hang out online with other believing LDS.

Sunstoned made a claim and the discussion that followed is in part about proving or disproving that claim, correct? If so, it’s best to start by asking what definition Sunstoned was using to see if the definition makes verifiable or not first and if so, verify it. Then argue if there is a more precise term for “exmormon” than what Sunstoned used… Scripturally speaking, it shouldn’t be shocking even if depressing for believers if there are more exmormons than believing LDS in the world. The Church of the Lamb of God numbers are supposed to be few (though if in comparison to the world’s population, millions are few).

Why was he even appointed then? (Reading the article now, looks like it will answer that for me)

Depends on how you define “fall”.

I would definitely agree we can’t make a complete explanation about this. Besides informing Moses about their existence, God tells him that’s it, he is not sharing more info on them. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/1?lang=eng