MarginOfError

Trigger warning labels are censorship in the same way that Explicit Lyrics warnings are censorship--they're not.

That's a bit off topic, as I'm not aware of anything in this thread stating that rape prevention was weakening modern women.
 
One of the issues srmaher has with modern feminism is that it is "weakening" women by doing things like putting trigger warnings on literature.  According to the CDC's report, some 1.6 million women under the age of 25 were raped in the previous year, with an additional 5.2 million suffering another form of sexual assault.  About half of those women are college aged.  This would suggest that in any given year, colleges across the use are deal with 3.2 million rape victims and 10.2 million victims of other sexual assaults.  For many of these women, the psychological damage is deep and may not be fully resolved...especially if it happened recently.
 
The sad fact is that women who are sexually assaulted in college have some of the highest drop out rates.  So the reality is that placing the trigger warnings may actually be empowering women--by establishing an environment less likely to trigger their traumatic memories; an environment more conducive to helping them finish their educations and accomplish their goals. 
 
There is nothing empowering about facing down your demons before you are prepared to do so.  

Okay, maybe I stand corrected.  Feminism is definitely weakening women for no good reason.  The CDC just released a report and found that ONLY 1 in 5 US women has experienced rape in their lives.  There's definitely nothing to be squeamish about here :eyeroll:
 
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e#Table1

Or maybe you're just listening to the strands that reinforce your world view.

It's a "sandbox" game, which means you go in and you play with no real purpose or goal.  Essentially, the premise of the game is you're dumped in a world with nothing but a few clothes and you have to obtain all the materials necessary to survive.  If you don't have shelter before the sun goes down, you have to fight off zombies, skeletons, and "creepers" (some weird creature that blows up when it gets close to you).
 
My wife calls it "Legos on the computer"
 
If you look at my picture, that was all forest a year ago.  I've spent the year building up the city, mining all the materials for the buldings, and establishing a safe haven in which I can work without fear of monsters invading. I'm currently working on acquiring the materials to build a massive church.  
 
Mostly, it's a great way to waste a lot of time if you have time to waste.  I usually play it while I'm tutoring students (I do an online tutoring program) and when I can't sleep.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft#Gameplay

Or maybe you're just listening to the strands that reinforce your world view.

Or maybe you're just listening to the strands that reinforce your world view.

As much as it will shock you to hear this come from me:
 
If you want to engage with Russia, you need to take a play out of Regan's book.  Make it an arms race.  The Russian economy is built on fraud and can't support a major arms race to keep up with what the US can do.  There's no need to actually have a conflict.  You just need to gear up for one faster than the other guy.

I'll be sure to let people like James E Talmage, David O. McKay, and Henry B Eyring know that.

I'd like to give you a reasoned and thoughtful response, but there really isn't one.  Your rant doesn't have any serious point worth considering.  The medical equivalent of your argument would be if I were to say, "Look, I found three cases of people who were on Coumadin and died of a blood clot.  Clearly Coumadin isn't working, so we should pull it from the market."
 
Now, if you want to have a discussion about how rape victims process their trauma and if we can or should be doing things to avoid triggering that trauma, that's an interesting discussion to have.  I might even enjoy that.
 
If you want to have a discussion about cat calling and sexual harrassment in public spheres, then we can talk.  
 
But the argument you present here isn't a rational argument; it's a red herring.  If you're going to rely on arguments like this, you're going to have to do it in an echo chamber, because the serious feminists on this board won't be bothered with this kind of nonsense.

It's true, that the number of pregnancies that "seriously threaten the health of the mother" is small.  It's more common for there to be a problem with the fetus.  The most common issues we deal with here are heart defects.  Most of those go on to birth and surgery.  The problems that are most likely to bring up termination are the genetic and chromosomal disorders that can't be reversed or repaired with surgery.  There are probably 3-4 of these cases that bring up termination as a possibility than there are where the mother's life is jeopardized.
 
That being said, you're still right that the vast majority of abortions are performed without any medical indication.  It's sad and tragic, but what I've realized in working with these physicians is that each and every road block that goes up to prevent "convenience abortions" creates more roadblocks and headaches for women who have medical indications for a termination.  Based on my experience, that's a trade I'm not willing to make.
 
So to sum up my views, I believe that abortion is a valid medical procedure that needs to have a place within the care of pregnant women*.  And I believe it should be covered as a part of standard maternity care in health insurance policies.  Elective (non-medically indicated) abortions should then be treated like we would other elective procedures--namely, if you want it, pay for it yourself.  
 
I will grant some reasonable restrictions, such as disallowing elective abortions after a reasonable expectation of independent viability has been reached.  Aside from that, however, I feel it is my duty to persuade people away from abortion, not to legislate them out of it.
 
 
* abortion really doesn't have the status of a valid part of medical care, even in extreme circumstances.  Terminations are coded into the medical record in the vaguest of terms still, and I can't release any confirmation that we even perform terminations let alone the number for fear that the crazies will show up on our doorstep and harass our patients.  

The idea that there's some kind of moral imperative to aborting a pregnancy when the child is known to have a severe disability is ludicrous.  And it will be rare that you find a physician that agrees with that kind of imperative.  What you will find is a lot of physicians who believe in allowing parents to make the choice for themselves.
 
I've sat in on some heart breaking meetings at work with the high risk pregnancy group.  These physicians are charged with caring for women who have serious health conditions themselves, or are carrying children with serious deformations and illnesses.  With the conditions we are looking at, Down syndrome is one of the least of our concerns. A certain number of our deliveries go straight from the delivery room to surgery.
 
One of the most depressing cases I've come across here was a rare event where the fetus, instead of attaching to the uterine wall, grows into the uterine wall.  The probability of survival to birth: 0.  It's never happened.  The really heart breaking thing was the, because the mother felt morally obligated not to terminate the pregnancy, she was knowingly carrying a growing fetus that would soon die--and that the larger the fetus grew, the more damage would be done to the uterus, and the harder it would be to conceive again.  
 
Over the past year as I've interacted with this group, my view of abortion has shifted significantly.  I now consider it a matter of individual health care, and a decision that should be left between the patient and her physician.  The concept of morality with regards to abortion for pregnancies gone wrong is a farce.  There is no morality in these situations.  Only heart ache and disappointment.  And each person will need to cope with those challenges in the own unique way.

I just looked up the actual academic article.  http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf.  From my reading, it's pretty clear that the NYT overstated the results.  The biggest problems with these findings is that they claim that the sexual frequency within a couple drops from just under five to just above three when the proportion of core housework the male does goes from 0 to 1 (see page 40 in the pdf).  
 
The problem is that there are no data to support the extrapolation out to a proportion of 1.  The point estimate for the proportion of core work a man does was between .25 and .21.  A standard deviation of .19 means that your data really only support extrapolations up to a proportion of men's core housework being .60.  Realistically, I don't see any reason to think the trend is exactly linear past a proportion of 0.5.  To some extent, you would anticipate a mirroring effect if the man were doing the bulk of the core housework, or at least some kind of non-linear modification to the trend.
 
Realistically, the worst case scenario is that couples where the man and woman split the core housework evenly might have sex one less time per month than a more traditional couple, but even this will be moderated by the presence of children, the age of those children, employment status of the spouse's, and time spent alone with each other.  What's more, the study doesn't address concerns noted in other literature about the expectation of sex on demand by men in more traditional marriages.  
 
So, in short, I don't think this study says what you think it says (or what the NYT thinks it says--granted, the NYT article was written by a therapist, but I can't find any information on her degree other than that she majored in French.  In any case, social scientists have a reputation for bad statistical practice).

It's true, that the number of pregnancies that "seriously threaten the health of the mother" is small.  It's more common for there to be a problem with the fetus.  The most common issues we deal with here are heart defects.  Most of those go on to birth and surgery.  The problems that are most likely to bring up termination are the genetic and chromosomal disorders that can't be reversed or repaired with surgery.  There are probably 3-4 of these cases that bring up termination as a possibility than there are where the mother's life is jeopardized.
 
That being said, you're still right that the vast majority of abortions are performed without any medical indication.  It's sad and tragic, but what I've realized in working with these physicians is that each and every road block that goes up to prevent "convenience abortions" creates more roadblocks and headaches for women who have medical indications for a termination.  Based on my experience, that's a trade I'm not willing to make.
 
So to sum up my views, I believe that abortion is a valid medical procedure that needs to have a place within the care of pregnant women*.  And I believe it should be covered as a part of standard maternity care in health insurance policies.  Elective (non-medically indicated) abortions should then be treated like we would other elective procedures--namely, if you want it, pay for it yourself.  
 
I will grant some reasonable restrictions, such as disallowing elective abortions after a reasonable expectation of independent viability has been reached.  Aside from that, however, I feel it is my duty to persuade people away from abortion, not to legislate them out of it.
 
 
* abortion really doesn't have the status of a valid part of medical care, even in extreme circumstances.  Terminations are coded into the medical record in the vaguest of terms still, and I can't release any confirmation that we even perform terminations let alone the number for fear that the crazies will show up on our doorstep and harass our patients.  

I agree with you that a person who sees life through the lens of equality might interpret the Proclamation as advocating egalitarianism.  But I would also point out that a person who sees life through a traditionalist lens would interpret the Proclamation as advocating against egalitarianism.  
 
The reality is that the Proclamation advocates both traditional gender roles and egalitarianism.  Which of those gets more emphasis from any particular person says more about the person than it does about the Proclamation.

The idea that there's some kind of moral imperative to aborting a pregnancy when the child is known to have a severe disability is ludicrous.  And it will be rare that you find a physician that agrees with that kind of imperative.  What you will find is a lot of physicians who believe in allowing parents to make the choice for themselves.
 
I've sat in on some heart breaking meetings at work with the high risk pregnancy group.  These physicians are charged with caring for women who have serious health conditions themselves, or are carrying children with serious deformations and illnesses.  With the conditions we are looking at, Down syndrome is one of the least of our concerns. A certain number of our deliveries go straight from the delivery room to surgery.
 
One of the most depressing cases I've come across here was a rare event where the fetus, instead of attaching to the uterine wall, grows into the uterine wall.  The probability of survival to birth: 0.  It's never happened.  The really heart breaking thing was the, because the mother felt morally obligated not to terminate the pregnancy, she was knowingly carrying a growing fetus that would soon die--and that the larger the fetus grew, the more damage would be done to the uterus, and the harder it would be to conceive again.  
 
Over the past year as I've interacted with this group, my view of abortion has shifted significantly.  I now consider it a matter of individual health care, and a decision that should be left between the patient and her physician.  The concept of morality with regards to abortion for pregnancies gone wrong is a farce.  There is no morality in these situations.  Only heart ache and disappointment.  And each person will need to cope with those challenges in the own unique way.

The idea that there's some kind of moral imperative to aborting a pregnancy when the child is known to have a severe disability is ludicrous.  And it will be rare that you find a physician that agrees with that kind of imperative.  What you will find is a lot of physicians who believe in allowing parents to make the choice for themselves.
 
I've sat in on some heart breaking meetings at work with the high risk pregnancy group.  These physicians are charged with caring for women who have serious health conditions themselves, or are carrying children with serious deformations and illnesses.  With the conditions we are looking at, Down syndrome is one of the least of our concerns. A certain number of our deliveries go straight from the delivery room to surgery.
 
One of the most depressing cases I've come across here was a rare event where the fetus, instead of attaching to the uterine wall, grows into the uterine wall.  The probability of survival to birth: 0.  It's never happened.  The really heart breaking thing was the, because the mother felt morally obligated not to terminate the pregnancy, she was knowingly carrying a growing fetus that would soon die--and that the larger the fetus grew, the more damage would be done to the uterus, and the harder it would be to conceive again.  
 
Over the past year as I've interacted with this group, my view of abortion has shifted significantly.  I now consider it a matter of individual health care, and a decision that should be left between the patient and her physician.  The concept of morality with regards to abortion for pregnancies gone wrong is a farce.  There is no morality in these situations.  Only heart ache and disappointment.  And each person will need to cope with those challenges in the own unique way.

I agree with you that a person who sees life through the lens of equality might interpret the Proclamation as advocating egalitarianism.  But I would also point out that a person who sees life through a traditionalist lens would interpret the Proclamation as advocating against egalitarianism.  
 
The reality is that the Proclamation advocates both traditional gender roles and egalitarianism.  Which of those gets more emphasis from any particular person says more about the person than it does about the Proclamation.

I just looked up the actual academic article.  http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf.  From my reading, it's pretty clear that the NYT overstated the results.  The biggest problems with these findings is that they claim that the sexual frequency within a couple drops from just under five to just above three when the proportion of core housework the male does goes from 0 to 1 (see page 40 in the pdf).  
 
The problem is that there are no data to support the extrapolation out to a proportion of 1.  The point estimate for the proportion of core work a man does was between .25 and .21.  A standard deviation of .19 means that your data really only support extrapolations up to a proportion of men's core housework being .60.  Realistically, I don't see any reason to think the trend is exactly linear past a proportion of 0.5.  To some extent, you would anticipate a mirroring effect if the man were doing the bulk of the core housework, or at least some kind of non-linear modification to the trend.
 
Realistically, the worst case scenario is that couples where the man and woman split the core housework evenly might have sex one less time per month than a more traditional couple, but even this will be moderated by the presence of children, the age of those children, employment status of the spouse's, and time spent alone with each other.  What's more, the study doesn't address concerns noted in other literature about the expectation of sex on demand by men in more traditional marriages.  
 
So, in short, I don't think this study says what you think it says (or what the NYT thinks it says--granted, the NYT article was written by a therapist, but I can't find any information on her degree other than that she majored in French.  In any case, social scientists have a reputation for bad statistical practice).

No, you probably shouldn't get back together.
If you're really having that much trouble interacting with other people on dates, then you likely are lacking in valuable social experience. Remaining with her is the easy way out and, if that is the path you choose, could keep you socially stunted.
You're 17 and 18. The next 5 years of your lives will be some of the most drastic emotional development you'll ever experience. And neither of you will be the same person you are when it's over. You'll both come out of it healthier and more enriched if you are free to explore diverse social experiences.

It's interesting to note that David O. McKay was the president of the church when Joseph F Smith published The Origin of Man.  McKay was kind of irritated with it.  McKay believed in evolution, along with others like James E. Talmage.  But McKay didn't say anything because he felt that there was no revealed word on the matter and that it would be inappropriate for him to state his personal views because his role as President of the Church would cause people to mistake his personal views as revelation.  A few years down the road, McConkie would publish Mormon Doctrine.  These two books seemed to disturb McKay enough (especially Mormon Doctrine) that he instituted the policy that no General Authority could publish a book without the First Presidency's permission.  That policy stands to this day.  (These events are documented David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism)
 
Anyway, my point is that Joseph F. Smith was known to be less concerned about how his calling might influence people into acknowledging his opinions.  Looking through history, it would seem that the intellectuals were less prone to sharing their opinions than the anti-intellectuals, which has created an over-representation of the anti-intellectual views from church leaders. 

No, you probably shouldn't get back together.
If you're really having that much trouble interacting with other people on dates, then you likely are lacking in valuable social experience. Remaining with her is the easy way out and, if that is the path you choose, could keep you socially stunted.
You're 17 and 18. The next 5 years of your lives will be some of the most drastic emotional development you'll ever experience. And neither of you will be the same person you are when it's over. You'll both come out of it healthier and more enriched if you are free to explore diverse social experiences.

I spoke to a friend last night who lived in St Louis most of his life before moving here.  His only commentary were that race relations in Ferguson (and that area around St Louis) are a mess, and have been for years.  He also stated that police officers in that area had a reputation for being a bit militant and aggressive and that they have a very strong "us vs. them" mentality.  To put that in context, in 2000 (or thereabouts), Ferguson had more murders per capita than any other city in the country.  
 
The feeling I get from the whole situation is that for some reason, this one incident was the one that caused the pot to boil over.  It may not be a very good example of the issues at play, but there are some deep and serious issue at play in the area.  And there's a lot of blame to be passed around for that. 
 
In this particular instance, I'm willing to let the investigation take it's place and let the facts speak for themselves.  But the circumstances of this particular case don't exonerate the police and citizens in the area from the problems that led to this over-boil.

I spoke to a friend last night who lived in St Louis most of his life before moving here.  His only commentary were that race relations in Ferguson (and that area around St Louis) are a mess, and have been for years.  He also stated that police officers in that area had a reputation for being a bit militant and aggressive and that they have a very strong "us vs. them" mentality.  To put that in context, in 2000 (or thereabouts), Ferguson had more murders per capita than any other city in the country.  
 
The feeling I get from the whole situation is that for some reason, this one incident was the one that caused the pot to boil over.  It may not be a very good example of the issues at play, but there are some deep and serious issue at play in the area.  And there's a lot of blame to be passed around for that. 
 
In this particular instance, I'm willing to let the investigation take it's place and let the facts speak for themselves.  But the circumstances of this particular case don't exonerate the police and citizens in the area from the problems that led to this over-boil.