MarginOfError

I do genuinely appreciate the feedback. Like @jdf135, I get irritated when leaders don't take into account what those they serve are feeling (happens to me a lot if you can believe it ). One of the problems I have, if I'm honest, is that I feel like this particular person has no business being anywhere near youth that are in a faith crisis. His approach toward these things is pretty heavy handed, and I don't see the youth he thinks are in need of his help as actually responding to his tactics. To put it shortly, I am under the impression that this desire to work with the youth is some kind of hero-complex kicking in. And some of that...I don't want to call it animosity, but I'm not sure what the better word is...is definitely personal. I mean, to put it in context, this would be like @Vort telling me he has had distinct impressions that he should be called to teach my kids because he doesn't feel like they're being taught adequately by the people we've called (I mean that in the best way, Vort). So I've spent a few hours over the past two days trying to drop my guard and be open to the idea of calling him to work with youth (this brother, not Vort--let's be realistic ). I can't say my position has moved much. But I also can't say I feel certain that I've successfully let my guard down. Still working on it. I've imposed an artificial deadline on myself of the start of mutual activities this week. If I haven't had any change in my feelings, I'm just going to call "stupor of thought" and proceed as usual. If that's wrong, then I'll have to accept the consequences of that. Any other advice on how to deal with these kinds of situations is appreciated.

I work pretty closely with the bishopric.

I'm struggling here and could use some advice. Earlier today, a call was extended to a member in our ward to be a counselor in the elders quorum. Due to the nature of the calling, we weren't surprised when it was reported back that he wanted some time to think about it. What did take us off guard was his statement that his hesitation was that he felt he needed to be called into the young men organization. When that detail was reported back, everyone in our Bishopric was a bit taken aback. We have a fully staffed, smooth functioning Young Men organization that hasn't been together very long. What's more, we have a couple of youth that have been disengaging from the church somewhat, and it is the bishopric's impression that this particular brother would antagonize that situation (even though he is under the impression that he would be the fix). Anyhow, I have always hated it when Bishoprics have been dismissive of others' impressions. So I really want to take this information seriously. But it flies in the face of what I've felt about this brother for close to a year, so it's hard for me to put my strong biases aside here. How do you consider something like this without letting your own biases interfere?

Medically speaking (and I say this in my experience at my previous workplace doing women's health research), if the child dies before delivery, it is an abortion. End of story. They merely get coded as either "spontaneous abortion" or "induced abortion." In @LadyGunnar's case, the codes applied ideally would have reflected "spontaneous abortion followed by induction." One other likely contributor to the decline in abortion noted by Guttmacher--and forgive me, some of you may not like this--is Obamacare. Having mandated that insurance cover contraceptives gave a lot of women easier access to birth control that didn't previously have the option. I'll hide behind this blast wall now.....

While I agree that this is far too high, I will also point out that abortions are on the decline. Guttmacher Institute reports that there was a 25% decline in the rate of abortions between 2008 and 2014. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abortion-common-experience-us-women-despite-dramatic-declines-rates

old? You sick little ageist.

No. Just no. Under no terms do you get to be Gandalf.

Well dang, we've still arrived here

Missouri Executive Order 44?

I'm not so concerned about the political point he's trying to make. I find myself devastated by the attitude I perceive in these responses. For instance, the question about the creation theory of what's-his-bucket, my first thought when I read the question was, "I don't know who that is or what he taught." My lamentation is that people seem to respond to the unknown by rejecting it, rather than with curiosity. And since those people aren't like me, they obviously aren't worth saving.

Yeah, I failed to complete my thought there. Of course codification is easier with widespread acceptance of a single moral code. That doesn't always mean the widespread morality is just. I mean, one of the express reasons we have courts is to overturn laws that disadvantage/disempower a minority who don't share the same morals of a majority who imposed it on them anyway. Another way of phrasing that is that courts exist to adjudicate situations where the rights and/or interests of two parties conflict with each other. Which is effectively what Roe v Wade did, and I wish was made more explicit. And I'm also not discounting the process of social evolution. RBG has made comments in the past the Roe v. Wade was a bit of too-much, too-fast; and that if left alone, legislative processes probably would have wound up with a similar decision. But alas, here we are.

I'll pile on to this one as well. The Church most definitely does not use viability by itself as a metric for the moral evaluation of abortion. What it does use is "viability following birth," and, using cold hearted terms, permits individuals to engage in a cost-benefit analysis regarding continuing the pregnancy when viability past birth is unlikely. But as far as the Church is concerned, early termination of a pregnancy is a serious no-no.

Well, here's the thing, TFP...I will concede that a lot of law is codified morality. But importantly, it is the codification of widespread morality. But I would argue it is less about right vs. wrong and more about just vs. unjust. We evaluate concepts like, "should one individual be able to take another's property without compensation?" In terms of abortion, the concepts we are weighing are along the lines of "should one line be able to require another to host it to birth?" and "should one life be able to terminate the life growing within itself?" Which of those lives has just claim over the other? Neither is independent or free of the effects of the interests of the other. And I don't get the feeling there is widespread consensus regarding how to answer those questions. I'm not interested in relative moralism; I merely recognize that morality here isn't steady enough to build a meaningful decision.

Nothing hard. Just anecdotes of long timers laughing each time the tax went up a quarter a percent, since they knew never to buy their alcohol in Portland proper. This was one of those taxes that was being paid by people coming in from outside the city to be at the night clubs. It was brilliant, in its own way, as the city was able to boost revenue without laying the cost on the backs of its residents. (much like hotel taxes)

Don't forget the RFID tags. I'm not paying for a styrofoam cup unless it has an RFID tag that I can scan into my phone and then watch its world travels. I get very emotionally attached to my styrofoam.

Portland, Maine would be a good counter example to that claim. Its retail economy thrives on alcohol sales (night life). Every time it needed new revenue while I was living there, sales tax on mixed drinks went up. Business never suffered.

Should be easy enough. Once they get a taste of those sweet, sweet taxes, they'll be begging for more.

What you've been told is true. I don't see why that precludes charging three times the cost. Because capitalism.

I believe the technical term for that is "co-pay"

Truth be told, you may be on to something. Instead of banning straws, let's instead mandate they be manufactured with geotagging RFID readers. Each straw will cost an additional 16 cents. But then we'll finally be able to collect the data that shows how straws move about the globe after they are disposed of and we can finally and rightfully impose straw bans on those evil liberal coastal states and China while leaving Utah to consume its Diet Coke in peace.

There are days that I am not sure I belive humanity is worth saving.

Well, if we really want to get to the root of the problem, it is happening because people are throwing straws in the garbage. I vote we just eliminate all people who throw straws in the garbage. Problem solved. But hey, if you value your own conveniences more than you do the environment, then more power to your stewardship of the earth, I guess.

Well, for Mexico, I know the concern was less about the garbage patch and more about the damage to the local coral reefs. But yes, small acts can add up to large effects. And they can be worthwhile pursuits. But the argument, "the impact from small changes to my lifestyle won't be large enough to justify my personal inconvenience" don't get much sympathy from me. (Although I do empathize, because it's precisely the reason I hypocritically still drive a car to work). And for what it's worth, yes, let's ban scrapbooking. If only because I want to see what kind of people show up at the protests.

NIMBYism at it's finest.

I should have edited your quote. I was responding to the hygiene concern. With regards to your concerns about Chinese straws vs. American straws vs. what actually ends up in the oceans, my honest response is, "who cares? Why should any of that matter when we could be leaders on the issue? Where is all of that American Exceptionalism?" We're not really leaders, though. Mexico has done some great work with eliminating plastic straws, especially in resort areas. We're actually falling behind, and in time it may no longer be a discussion of American straws vs. Chinese straws, but that the Americans and the Chinese are the only civilizations barbaric enough to keep using the monstrosities.