Faithful LDS woman ex'd for publicly announcing she doesn't believe JS lived polygamy.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

Got it. Its as I said if these words are doctrine. A child who has sealed parents is golden and will end up Celestial no matter what they desire.

Clayton doesn't say "Celestial".  Neither does Martha but she says "children who have not transgressed".  So I doubt the doctrine is a child "is golden and will end up celestial no matter what they desire".  I do believe that there is some sort of pull that helps save those who are sealed.  I also believe that everyone will be sealed so it will affect everyone.  But we all have our agency and can resist it.

4 hours ago, JVW said:

In this point I really can't wrap my mind around your interpretation. In no way can I see the sentence "This is an abomination" to mean "This is not an abomination". I just can't see it, sorry. We'll have to agree to disagree. What is interesting about your attempt to reconcile is that you tried to tackle the verse directly. In every other conversation I have had that verse is set aside and the focus is shifted to the "if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people" because that is the official church apologetics and it is easier to argue. The only problem with that is that that verse does not address the contradictory verse. Context does not change that that verse says that David and Solomon's polygamy was a grave sin and that DC 132 says that David and Solomon didn't sin.

Jacob says in the chapter that they are using David and Solomon as the excuse to practice polygamy "for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son." so that's why he addresses those two specifically. Interestingly enough, it seems like David and Solomon were the primary excuse to justify polygamy in the 19th century as well. The other names were brought up as an afterthought to try and establish a pattern, but Abraham and Jacob are poor examples (because they were pressured by their doubting wife, or deceived by their uncle into practicing it and then pressured by their jealous wives, not commanded by God), and Isaac didn't practice even though God "authorized" the practice during his time and 132 claims Isaac did practice it. "I, the Lord, justified my servant ... Isaac ... as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines."

Fine to disagree.  I do agree that what David and Solomon did was an abomination.  But I just believe it is a bit more specific that is related to too many wives, taking wives outside of the appropriate channels, etc.

Also, David and Solomon were not the primary excuse to justify polygamy in the 19th century.  For me, it looks like the sole reason why D&C 132 mentions David and Solomon is to explain how polygamy is ok even though Jacob appears to have taught otherwise.  Abraham is mentioned more times in D&C 132 and it references him for multiple reasons why polygamy is allowed.  And The Seer mentions Abraham, Jacob and many of biblical polygamists along with David and Solomon - https://dn721506.ca.archive.org/0/items/OrsonPratt/TheSeer.pdf.  And other defenses of polygamy usually talk about Abraham over David and Solomon (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23286126).  It makes more sense to use Abraham and Jacob since what they did wasn't an abomination unlike David and Solomon.

4 hours ago, JVW said:

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight.

- God seals through the Holy Spirit of Promise which ratifies a priesthood ordinance and ensures it's validity after death. There is no way to personally verify whether one has been sealed by God, but it can be inferred based on how righteous they are. Except in cases where one receives a Second Anointing, which presumably is a ceremony that needs to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise but that sealing cannot be verified with a Third Anointing, so we are back to square one where it's impossible to personally verify.

I don't understand why members I talk to speak about the "calling and election made sure" (cems) so often. From what I've gathered chatting with you the cems is not a priesthood ordinance, and the one who has the power to do it does not lie with God, but with the individual. Why is it called cems if it doesn't make anything sure and there is no way to verify that it is unbreakable? Why do so many church members I talk to believe that if you get your cems, which is commonly viewed as a temple ordinance, that no matter what you do you are going Celestial even though that ordinance still needs to be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise? What leads you to believe that cems is tied to the Second Anointing? As far as I'm aware the Second Anointing simply fulfills the promise of becoming a king and priest to God a little earlier than it otherwise would be.

- Man seals through the sealing power given to them by God as seen in Helaman and the verses you quoted from the New Testament where one is given the "as above, so below" power. According to comments you've made there are two types of sealing power given to man, the "Nephi in Helaman" kind and the "temple sealer" kind. If I understand you correctly, the "Nephi in Helaman" sealing power is not involved in any ordinances. And in the case of the "temple sealer" no sealing occurs unless God seals it and God seals it according to personal righteousness not the authority or power of the priesthood ordinance or sealing keys.

Since there is a separation between the three types of sealing power then what is the point of the two types of sealing power given to men? For example, it is likely that the Catholic church still has God's authority. According to these beliefs every ordinance performed with authority is valid and has power. The only difference being that God is allegedly not ratifying those ordinances with the Holy Spirit of Promise so they won't be in effect after this life. However, we don't know whether or not God ratifies the authorized ordinances of the Catholic church, and he very well could because we make our own cems through our personal righteousness. In theory a person could be married by the authority of a Catholic priest, who can trace their lineage to Peter, and God could ratify that marriage via the Holy Spirit of Promise due to the personal righteousness of those participating in that marriage and they could be married for eternity.

5 hours ago, JVW said:

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your position.

To be clear my position is:

- There is one sealing power given to man and if a man uses that sealing power than whatever they seal is bound "as above, so below".
- Polygamy is an abomination before God and in every case the practice of it has caused problems and trends towards destruction.
- Polygamy hasn't ever been commanded and it arose because of confusion about a radically new doctrine that Joseph was unable to properly expound upon before his death.
- God ratifies every authorized priesthood ordinance via the "Holy Spirit of Promise" regardless of the personal righteousness of any individual involved as long as the priesthood keys are present (which is why the Catholic church lost the authority).
- An individual's personal righteousness doesn't determine whether God ratifies an ordinance, instead it is evidence of whether or not a person has chosen to accept the outcome of the ordinance.

I believe there is only one sealing power that has been given to the prophet and apostles.  But I believe that only part of it is delegated to others.  I believe the sealing power has the ability to "seal the heavens", aka prevent rain.  I don't believe that temple sealers can do that.

I believe that prophets and apostles can seal someone and have their "calling and election made sure".  I think that is the Second Anointing but I've never participated in it and so I'm not positive.  Based on DC 132, there is some sealing that does seal someone to Celestial Kingdom with only the unpardonable sin (murder) being able to break the seal.  Everything I've read about the Second Anointing fit what DC 132 says.  Here's what happened to Heber and Vilate Kimball - https://bhroberts.org/records/uSw9xc-0ZsJTY/heber_c_kimballs_second_anointing_blessing_in_book_of_anointings.  Lots of things are sealed on their head, including "all the Power & blessing of the Holy reserection, Even to the Eternal Godhead".

But for the vast majority of us, we won't have our "calling and election made sure" till after we are dead.  It is not a normal ordinance that is done.  We are supposed to, as 2 Peter 1:10 says, "give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall" and that is done by enduring to the end.

I'm not exactly sure what the Holy Spirit of Promise does but most of them it is mentioned, it is usually around sealing.  But I see you changed the term to "ratify" which might work just as well.  Since I've never personally met the "Holy Spirit of Promise" (which I believe is both the Holy Ghost and Christ depending on the situation), I don't worry that much about it.  I believe that just because I'm sealed to my wife doesn't mean that I'll be with her in the hereafter no matter what I do.  So there has to be something beyond the sealing ceremony in the temple that ensures that my sealing is solid and it has to involve my own person involvement.

[webbles]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

- Polygamy hasn't ever been commanded and it arose because of confusion about a radically new doctrine that Joseph was unable to properly expound upon before his death.

I wanted to split this out for a separate comment just because I needed some focus on it.

I think the "radically new doctrine" was eternal marriage.  Per Joseph's diary (https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/233), the following men and women were married to someone (most likely their living spouse) on May 28 and 29 (the journal says "married" not "sealed"):

• Joseph Smith
• James Adams
• Hyrum Smith
• Brigham Young
• Willard Richards
• Mercy Fielding Thompson

Both Hyrum and Brigham had a dead wife and a living wife.  Which wife should they get married to?  We have an explanation from Hyrum (https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/daa151c4-7bae-49d0-8cef-d281a70f1d32/0/33) :

Quote

Every thing belongs to man— legally & lawfully— if a thing belongs to me legally it cannot belong to any one I married me a wife & was the only one who had any write to her— till we had 5 Chi’d the covt. was made for our lives— she fell in the grave bef God shewed us his authy God has shewed me that the Covt. is dead & had no more force neither could I have her in the resn. but we shod. be as the angels— it troubled me— Bro J sd. you can be sealed to her upon the same prin as you can be bap for the dead what can I do for more 2nd. wife — you can make a covt. with her for etern & sealed to her — & she sd. I will act as proxy for the one that is dead — and I will be sealed to you for eternity.

So Hyrum was sealed to both of his wives.  This is the earliest public statement about being sealed to two wives (one dead and one living) and it really ties marriage and sealing together.  [And yes, I know that the church history expanded, but using just Hyrum's words, it is definitely about being sealed to two women.  I've also seen anti-polygamists edit this talk as well to remove the last statement ("I will be sealed to you for eternity") since it hurts the anti-polygamist position.]

I find it interesting that several of the early polygamists were widowers.  I think that was a factor in how polygamy started.

It is also fascinating that a widow was involved (Mercy) and that her situation wasn't enough to bring in eternal polyandry instead of just eternal polygyny.  She also is interesting because all early sealings that involved a dead spouse, someone stood as proxy and was "married for time" to the living spouse.  This makes a lot of sense for those that remarried, but it is weird for those that haven't remarried.  There's one case where a woman was sealed to her dead husband and the proxy was her own son and he was "married for time" to his mom.  What happened in Mercy's ceremony as it is probably the very first one that involved a living wife and a dead husband?  Did someone stand proxy?  If so, was the proxy "married for time" to her?  Mercy's own explanation is a little confusing.  She talks about being married to Hyrum but she gives two points of time for it happening: once on this date and once at a later date.

[Tacenda]

On 12/24/2025 at 10:34 AM, The Nehor said:

And God considers an accidental abortion *checks notes* a property crime so not sure how that constitutes human sacrifice..

Then again God doesn’t care that much about small children post-birth either.

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks!" -Psalm 137:9

 

This is why I take the Bible with a grain of salt. 

[Tacenda]

On 12/25/2025 at 1:25 PM, longview said:

Way off base.

This is most likely referring to the crime of abortion. Especially those done for convenience. Some are even advocating for post-natal killing of children (up to age of eight). 😢

CFR on my bold? 

[longview]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

CFR on my bold? 

Mary Anne Warren (philosopher): discussed criteria of personhood and the moral status of fetuses, and she also wrote on infanticide as a theoretical topic.

"The Moral Difference Between Infanticide and Abortion: A Response to Robert Card". Bioethics, Vol. 14, pp. 352–359 (October 2000)

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, longview said:

Mary Anne Warren (philosopher): discussed criteria of personhood and the moral status of fetuses, and she also wrote on infanticide as a theoretical topic.

"The Moral Difference Between Infanticide and Abortion: A Response to Robert Card". Bioethics, Vol. 14, pp. 352–359 (October 2000)

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.

 

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Mary Anne Warren (philosopher): discussed criteria of personhood and the moral status of fetuses, and she also wrote on infanticide as a theoretical topic.

"The Moral Difference Between Infanticide and Abortion: A Response to Robert Card". Bioethics, Vol. 14, pp. 352–359 (October 2000)

So you think a theoretical topic is somehow active advocacy? Are you just looking for things to be enraged about?

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

 

"rarely justified" should be enough to stop you in your tracks. 🤨

How about "never justified"?

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"rarely justified" should be enough to stop you in your tracks. 🤨

How about "never justified"?

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?

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

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?

Infanticide, of which we are talking, is the pro-active killing of an already born human child.

I'm sorry if you believe that there is ambiguity.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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?

I can think of many circumstances where it would probably be better for an infant to die than to live. But I can’t think of any instances where it would be better for someone to kill an infant than to allow it to live.

 

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Infanticide, of which we are talking, is the pro-active killing of an already born human child.

I'm sorry if you believe that there is ambiguity.

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.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

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.

Good extreme example that misrepresents by point...

Allowing them to die naturally is a far cry from proactively killing them.

And were does it end? What will eventually be deemed a "quality of life" issue that open that doorway to infanticide as an option? When will government decide they can intervene to have a disabled infant killed for it's own good? Things never end with the extreme examples.

Canada just recently made a citizen undergo assisted suicide.

[longview]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

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,

You think that doctors are unable to medicate the infant or even put into an induced coma? Please stop with the drama!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I can think of many circumstances where it would probably be better for an infant to die than to live. But I can’t think of any instances where it would be better for someone to kill an infant than to allow it to live.

 

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?

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Good extreme example that misrepresents by point...

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

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

You think that doctors are unable to medicate the infant or even put into an induced coma? Please stop with the drama!

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 

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

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 it 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?

I do not accept any scenario where intentional, pro-active measures are taken to kill a child.

[longview]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

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 on potential of overdosing by mistake due to medication I take on how combinations of drug can raise the risk so much higher than drugs alone.  It doesn’t take much for an adult.

Nice job of soft-pedalling concerns about partial-birth abortions (and frequent "noise" about potential killing of "inconvenient" children post natal) by diverting into a whole series of "what abouts".

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I do not accept any scenario where intentional, pro-active measures are taken to kill a child.

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.

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, longview said:

Nice job of soft-pedalling concerns about partial-birth abortions (and frequent "noise" about potential killing of "inconvenient" children post natal) by diverting into a whole series of "what abouts".

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.

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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?

I don't believe any human has the future knowledge or moral authority required to know when it is more moral to kill an infant.  I know a lot of people believe that euthanizing humans can be the moral decision, but I've never been in that camp.  Especially for children.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe any human has the future knowledge or moral authority required to know when it is more moral to kill an infant.  I know a lot of people believe that euthanizing humans can be the moral decision, but I've never been in that camp.  Especially for children.

I am not being clear…do you believe the below is a moral approach to end of life care, especially the bolded part?

Quote

Medications at the end of life can be safely, ethically, and legally titrated in proportion to symptom burden, even if the dosing range exceeds typical parameters (eg, for patients with baseline opioid tolerance). At times, the medications and doses needed for symptom control may shorten the time to death because of their impact on sedation level and respiratory drive; such risk may be acceptable given the goal of comfort and symptom management. However, prescribing medications with the intent to hasten death is unethical and illegal. Such requests for intentionally hastening death offer an opportunity for further conversations to explore what concerns triggered the request.

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/149/5/e2022057011/186860/Guidance-for-Pediatric-End-of-Life-Care?

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

It always starts that way, it doesn't end that way- the groups that fall within those rules continues expanding.

First, it was terminally ill people eligible for euthanasia- now mentally ill people can request it it some countries.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

t always starts that way, it doesn't end that way- the groups that fall within those rules continues expanding.

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)?

Edited December 27, 2025 by Calm