A Little Bit Pregnant?

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I guess we can call this thread “A Little Bit Alive (or Dead)” then.

Title still works for the initial topic. I got curious and looked up the podcast that was tied to the professors interest. It's talking about the ambiguity of what a missed period really is and the uncertainty of early viability....and leaning into that when rebranding plan c as "missed period pills" as in, you're early enough, so you skip testing and just get a pill to restart your period. It could be an abortion. It could be just a late period that can happen for whatever reason. Like Schrodinger's cat you don't really know if you never proverbially open the box.

That said, I do think it an interesting idea to consider early pregnancy as "a little bit alive." In some ways, as a woman who's had 2 miscarriages, it kinda feels right to me. There's this unsaid uncertainty that comes with at least the first 8 weeks of pregnancy if not a little after, since those are the weeks most associated with miscarriage.  The fertilized egg can most likely grow into a developed baby if allowed to progress naturally. But it has a pretty high chance of not early on in the process too. Many will have fatal flaws that mean it can't/won't develop beyond the early fetal stages. Some will encounter early environmental pressure of the woman's womb or general health that are hostile to any further development. So in some ways, they have the sparks of life, but haven't become the roaring fire of a fully formed babe. 

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

For me. deciding “when the spirit enters the body” and “when the organism has the capacity for consciousness” still rely on assumptions such as a brain being required for consciousness and gametes and zygotes lacking brains (or any alternative means of consciousness) – still a matter of philosophy and semantics and a good-faith best-guess, however rationalized. Yes, people/voters have to agree on any driving set of assumptions, at least outnumber those who don’t. If anyone knows how to create and preserve mortal life better than ending it or pinpoint when it begins with more accuracy than when it ends, that would be a great point to bring out in the debate.

I don't disagree. I think generally most people somewhat fall into a similar opinion though they may use different phrases and ideals to indicate that the fetus is alive, yes...but it's missing something(s) to make it more equivalent to a full person. A vocal minority do not. Which is probably why when you dig into actual polls, there is also general consensus around abortion policy that reflects a difference in status based on gestational development. It's just not one that either party in our current system fully supports or embodies. 

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is why I think the genius if the Handbook is that it accommodates all perspectives, recognizing that mortal death and proactively ending mortal life are a part of nature (including the divine nature as demonstrated with Nephi/Laban and the subsequent justification for war) and offering a decision-making method that builds the Zion “system.”

I think it's why in general principle I don't disagree. My disagreement is that I do think there's other circumstances that I thing may be justifiable for a woman to have an abortio. A big one for me is if the person is with someone who is abusive and the abortion increases their ability to escape a bad situation. That said, I do think the gravity of life and death and the responsibility to both that we as a society in general hold but that we as women are often have a unique position with should never be one made lightly and should as members be tied into zion aspirations.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 26, 2022 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

On 12/25/2022 at 10:46 AM, Rain said:

I've known women who said they felt it at conception.  I have 3 kids and never felt their spirits enter, nor did I ever feel their spirits during pregnancy. I did, however, feel all of their spirits years before I was ever pregnant.  

 

I fall a little in between. I often have had feelings of a spirit connected to early pregnancy around conception...and also had some sneak peaks prior. In fact one of the big key indicators that my first miscarriage was going to happen for me was because I never fell that connecting peace/joy experience. I've interpreted it differently than say a spirit entering a body, though. It felt more like a spirit was getting tied to a body I was creating. Like yearn just starting to be knit together. This also like changed how I see my second miscarriage. I had the experience of someone being close/tied to me with the pregnancy...but then I miscarried. My impression that the body just wasn't right for this one. Which turned out to be pretty clearly true when I recently got pregnant with twins. There was no way a single fetus could house two.   

But I never push back when someone sees it differently. For all I know, it could be different for them. We don't leave the world exactly the same, so I don't think we need to necessarily start it the same too.

 

With luv,

BD

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Title still works for the initial topic. I got curious and looked up the podcast that was tied to the professors interest. It's talking about the ambiguity of what a missed period really is and the uncertainty of early viability....and leaning into that when rebranding plan c as "missed period pills" as in, you're early enough, so you skip testing and just get a pill to restart your period. It could be an abortion. It could be just a late period that can happen for whatever reason. Like Schrodinger's cat you don't really know if you never proverbially open the box.

That said, I do think it an interesting idea to consider early pregnancy as "a little bit alive." In some ways, as a woman who's had 2 miscarriages, it kinda feels right to me. There's this unsaid uncertainty that comes with at least the first 8 weeks of pregnancy if not a little after, since those are the weeks most associated with miscarriage.  The fertilized egg can most likely grow into a developed baby if allowed to progress naturally. But it has a pretty high chance of not early on in the process too. Many will have fatal flaws that mean it can't/won't develop beyond the early fetal stages. Some will encounter early environmental pressure of the woman's womb or general health that are hostile to any further development. So in some ways, they have the sparks of life, but haven't become the roaring fire of a fully formed babe. 

I don't disagree. I think generally most people somewhat fall into a similar opinion though they may use different phrases and ideals to indicate that the fetus is alive, yes...but it's missing something(s) to make it more equivalent to a full person. A vocal minority do not. Which is probably why when you dig into actual polls, there is also general consensus around abortion policy that reflects a difference in status based on gestational development. It's just not one that either party in our current system fully supports or embodies. 

I think it's why in general principle I don't disagree. My disagreement is that I do think there's other circumstances that I thing may be justifiable for a woman to have an abortio. A big one for me is if the person is with someone who is abusive and the abortion increases their ability to escape a bad situation. That said, I do think the gravity of life and death and the responsibility to both that we as a society in general hold but that we as women are often have a unique position with should never be one made lightly and should as members be tied into zion aspirations.

 

With luv,

BD

Yes, I think the Handbook guidance covers every possible situation one could face in deciding on an abortion without relying on an understanding of when human life begins, which I take to be an appropriately more subjective, semantically neutral and forthright approach to the subject. I think the more we can inject this into law and regulation, the better. 

[Buckeye]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

I told my husband my children must not have spirits after reading the Brigham Young quote. 😁

For your children I’d take your word over Brigham’s any day.
More than perhaps any other topic, this is one where I believe we would benefit from have women among the prophets, seers and revelators. 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I fall a little in between. I often have had feelings of a spirit connected to early pregnancy around conception...and also had some sneak peaks prior. In fact one of the big key indicators that my first miscarriage was going to happen for me was because I never fell that connecting peace/joy experience. I've interpreted it differently than say a spirit entering a body, though. It felt more like a spirit was getting tied to a body I was creating. Like yearn just starting to be knit together. This also like changed how I see my second miscarriage. I had the experience of someone being close/tied to me with the pregnancy...but then I miscarried. My impression that the body just wasn't right for this one. Which turned out to be pretty clearly true when I recently got pregnant with twins. There was no way a single fetus could house two.   

But I never push back when someone sees it differently. For all I know, it could be different for them. We don't leave the world exactly the same, so I don't think we need to necessarily start it the same too.

 

With luv,

BD

During one of my wife's pregnancies she had a dream where a woman dressed in white brought a baby to her and told her this is what your baby would look like if were to be born but this one is not going to make it. She had a miscarriage shortly after that. Not sure what that dream meant if anything. 

[Thinking]

On 12/25/2022 at 12:41 PM, Rain said:

He suffered on the cross for our sins as well.

"And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 p.m., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred."

Elder McConkie

 

On 12/25/2022 at 1:54 PM, JAHS said:

That could be, and it was a beautiful talk, but I look at what he said there as more of a personal opinion than actual fact. I was always taught he suffered for our sins in the garden; why would He have to do that same suffering again on the cross?

McConkie got his opinion/info from James E. Talmage. "It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure." (Jesus The Christ, p. 661)

 

 

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

 

McConkie got his opinion/info from James E. Talmage. "It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure." (Jesus The Christ, p. 661)

 

 

"It seems" is the critical phrase here. 

[Thinking]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

"It seems" is the critical phrase here. 

Meaning you don't believe that the suffering from Gethsemane recurred on the cross?

[2BizE]

On 12/23/2022 at 7:50 AM, Duncan said:

I find it deeply shocking as well that people like yourselves deny people their agency-which was Satan plan after all, keep following Satan then. I also find it deeply shocking that God killed children and under 2 years of age when The Israelites were in bondage to the Egyptians

if you want to follow a false prophet like Greg Matsen go ahead but the rest of us don't

I’m a bit confused here, but why do we believe in a God that kills innocent children?

Edited December 27, 2022 by 2BizE
Accident

[JAHS]

24 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Meaning you don't believe that the suffering from Gethsemane recurred on the cross?

My opinion is, why would he have to go through that twice? Wasn't the first time enough? If it was going to happen on the cross anyway, why go through it in the Garden? I have seen conflicting opinions from past Church leaders on this who don't mention this idea at all when talking about the crucifixion.  

[rodheadlee]

The way I understand it is the suffering in the garden was for our sins and the suffering on the cross and resurrection of Christ was for our Resurrection. Everyone will be Resurrected. Not everyone will be forgiven of their sins unless they accept Christ as their Savior and bow to him. These are the wicked who will suffer for their own sins.

God doesn't make little children suffer men do.

Edited December 27, 2022 by rodheadlee

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

The way I understand it is the suffering in the garden was for our sins and the suffering on the cross and resurrection of Christ was for our Resurrection. Everyone will be Resurrected. Not everyone will be forgiven of their sins unless they accept Christ as their Savior and bow to him. These are the wicked who will suffer for their own sins.

God doesn't make little children suffer men do.

Plenty of the suffering of little children is due to disease, mental and emotional difficulties, and other children. The idea that children would be free from suffering if adults would just behave is silly.

[Teancum]

On 12/25/2022 at 12:17 PM, rodheadlee said:

It sounds like a p.o. God. Who got crucified the first time He showed up. 

 

Wasn't crucifixion part of God's plan?

[rodheadlee]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Plenty of the suffering of little children is due to disease, mental and emotional difficulties, and other children. The idea that children would be free from suffering if adults would just behave is silly.

It would be silly if that's what I actually said.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It would be silly if that's what I actually said.

So……silly, glad we agree.

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So……silly, glad we agree.

Yes. All hail Nehor, he knoweth all. No disease was caused by man dumping chemicals in our water, air and land or inventing new viruses so they can invent a cure for the virus that never existed before they invented it. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

the virus that never existed before they invented it

Do you mean a particular virus mutation? To clarify using an analogy, you are not saying there were no beagles—SARS-CoVid—before, but rather there were no North Country beagles—SARS COV 2 2019—before, correct? (Sheesh, out of the habit of writing about it and keep screwing up the correct labeling, hopefully it is at least close now)

Quote

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) is a viral infection caused by a coronavirus that results in a flu-like respiratory illness. There was an outbreak of SARS-CoV in 2002 that led to a pandemic in 2003, but the virus was quickly contained.

https://www.news-medical.net/health/How-does-SARS-CoV-2-Compare-to-SARS-CoV.aspx

Edited December 28, 2022 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you mean a particular virus mutation? To clarify using an analogy, you are not saying there were no beagles—SARS-CoVid—before, but rather there were no North Country beagles—SARS COV 2 2019—before, correct? (Sheesh, out of the habit of writing about it and keep screwing up the correct labeling, hopefully it is at least close now)

https://www.news-medical.net/health/How-does-SARS-CoV-2-Compare-to-SARS-CoV.aspx

I wasn't speaking of any particular one. I really shouldn't have commented on it cuz I don't know anything about it. I read too many novels. It's really not a good place to get your education.