Mission Call

It came.

I'm going to the Mexico Saltillo Mission. It's just south of Texas. It's not the beautiful, jungle-ish part of Mexico, it's the desert-y, Nacho Libre part of Mexico, complete with drug cartel Los Zetas.

So that's where I'm going! Viva Mexico!

The Church is True

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we throw around this phrase, "The Church is True," a lot without ever really thinking about what it means. It's confusing to people who don't speak Mormonese, it's confusing to people who do speak Mormonese although they don't usually realize it, and it's frankly misleading in a lot of ways. Don't burn me at the stake yet; hear me out. Or don't. It's your choice.

I'm going to start of with what "The Church is True" (TCIT) doesn't mean. TCIT doesn't mean that we are a perfect people. Sometimes people outside the Church seem to think that it does and get "turned-off" (here meaning "convinced that the Church is not 'true'") when they see a member do something imperfect. (By the way, when I say "perfect" or "imperfect" in this article, they mean "flawless" or "flawed" as opposed to the original Latinate meaning: "complete, whole, finished.") Nobody's perfect (except Jesus) and everybody knows that, so it's unreasonable to assume that Mormons think Mormons are perfect. We are quite aware of our flaws, at least most of us, and being unaware is in itself a flaw, so of course we don't claim to be perfect.

TCIT also doesn't mean that the organization is perfect, however darn close it is. We're imperfect people, so how can an organization made up of us be perfect? It's a very wonderful organization and maybe the closest to perfect that you can get in this world of mortal goofballs, but it has its flaws.

Relatedly, TCIT also doesn't mean that we claim that everything that the Church or its members have ever done to be divinely inspired. That would be moronic to claim that. A few examples anti-Mormons (a phrase we use to mean anybody who actively works to get people to convert from the Church, not just anybody who is against the teachings of the Church) like to point out: Mountain Meadows Massacre, Blacks and the Priesthood, Young's Adam-God Theory, various political points in history and contemporany (not a word but it should be), and (my new favorite) "Why does the Book of Mormon teach one thing but the Mormons teach another?" I'm not going to refute every single issue. If you really want to know, ask a Mormon, preferably instead of asking an Anti.

TCIT also doesn't mean our leaders always say the word of God. If you've been with me since the beginning, you know my rant on President Ezra Taft Benson whom I respect as a prophet of God but whom I do not believe is spoke the word of God when he spoke about politics. For every example you point out to me of Church leaders claiming to be perfect and what they say to be the absolute true word of God, I will give you three instances of Church leaders claiming that even Church leaders are subject to biases and confusion of doctrine and all the other calamities that every other person who ever lived is subject to. Mormon leaders are constantly proclaiming their own fallibility from the pulpit.

Finally, TCIT really, really doesn't mean that Mormon Culture is "true." God does not condemn the consumption of caffeine (or at least not according to real doctrine) and Coke is not the devil's drink (although it might be; I don't know); women are not any more or less entitled to any blessing than men; Glenn Beck does not speak for God, the church, conservatives, the country or anybody but himself; uniformity is not the same as unity in Christ; although strongly encouraged, it is not required of young men to fulfill a mission in order to go to heaven; the White Horse prophecy is not Church doctrine and wouldn't necessarily refer to Mitt Romney anyway; and carrot Jell-O, funeral potatoes and casserole are delicious but not something that has to be served at every linger-longer or ward potluck.

TCIT does mean that it was organized by Christ as a reestablisment (or Restoration) of the early Christian Church. It means that we are the only organization (Church) with all the doctrines and ordinances (rituals and promises) required to enter and be God's Kingdom. However, that does not mean that we are the only church that God guides or that has anything good and true. The more I study other religions, the more I appreciate God's hand in bringing them about. Critics use our similarities to "disprove" that we receive information from God, that we're only receiving information from each other. But how do they know that it wasn't God who led to us to meet each other and exchange ideas? And not all similarities can be explained that way, nor can they be explained by random happenstance, but that we got our information from the same source: a loving God.

We being the only Church that has all the ordinances and doctrines that we need to prepare to meet God also doesn't mean that we have everything. If we had everything, then there wouldn't be questions and there are plenty of questions. It's amazing: anti-Mormons rant about how we're a controlling, strictured patriarchy or we're a loosey-goosey band of "Godmakers." I haven't had much exposure to other congregations, but I don't know another group that basically gives its members the Levar Burton guarantee "Don't take my word for it" while still maintaining a stable society of members that love and support each other. Yes, there are flukes. But they're just that: flukes. The Church is still true. Any attempt to prove otherwise will fall flat. They always have, they always will.

By the way: my mission call will be here probably Wednesday or Thursday but definitely before next Tuesday a week from tomorrow. Also, "like" Demormocrat on facebook or become a follower here!

Mission Call!

It came!

Dear Elder Taylor:

You are hereby called to serve as a missionary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You are assigned to labor in the Gondor Osgiliath Mission. It is anticipated that you will serve for a period of 24 months. 

You should report to the Rivendell Missionary Training Center on Wednesday, February 26, 2014. You will prepare to preach the gospel in the Sindarin and Westron languages. Your assignment may be modified according to the needs of the mission president.

Obviously I'm joking. (Actually, apparently not so obvious. There were people that thought this was furrealzies when I posted it on facebook.) I had my for-sure last interview yesterday. My stake president interrupted my temple prep class to press "submit" in front of us on the papers. He told me to call him on Saturday to see if I'd been assigned yet. He won't be able to see where, but he'll be able to see if the call will be coming the next week. I'm getting excited just thinking about it!

I know it sounds cheesy and cliche, but I really don't care where I go. I used to always say somewhere third-world and poor--somewhere where I have to shower out of a bucket and avoid puddles for guinea worm--and I still do think that that would be awesome. I've seen a slew of movies lately in Nordic countries--Frozen, How to Train Your Dragon, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty--and the more I think about it, the cooler it sounds to go there. However, I also think that going to Seattle or New York or even Salt Lake City would be awesome. Heck, I'd be fine with going to Nampa as long as I'm speaking Spanish.

Dad has been teasing me that he thinks I'll be called to Wyoming and be in a ward with a bishop who begins testimony meeting by speaking about the beautiful truths spoken by the prophet Glenn Beck. I had to think about that: maybe I'm not excited to go just anywhere. But turns out there's not a Wyoming mission, so we're good. (Actually, even though there's not a Wyoming mission, there is the Dakotas mission and several other missions that partition off bits of Wyoming. As long as I don't get called Wyomingese-speaking, I'll only spend part of my time in that state if I'm going there.)

So the countdown is on. I'm still hoping that the call will be here before the end of the Olympics, but it's not likely. Speaking of the Olympics, was anyone else astounded to see that for a while, the USA was losing to the Netherlands? Who loses to the Netherlands?

Happy Presidents' Day!

Happy day celebrating the two presidents who fought and argued the hardest to make sure our country wasn't divided along partisan and political lines. Good thing we're living up to what they expected of us.

So Happy Presidents' Day!

A Few Words Whose Definitions We Have Forgotten or Never Even Knew

We have a serious word-mincing problem in our political mudfights. The classic example: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is'...is." After which he goes on to weave a semantic labyrinth, apparently thinking that he can finagle his way Jack-Sparrow-style out of a perjury indictment. But we have forgotten--or never knew--the meaning of more words than just "is" and they're used all the time in dialogue, tossed around like the people using them actually know what they're saying. Just watch Fox News or Bill Maher. It leads to the propagation of emotional words--words like "communist" or "chemicals" or "Islamist" to incite fear or words like "American" or "red-white-and-blue" to evoke good feelings--and the death of actual discourse.

So this is a list of words that get thrown around a lot but often not in a correct or suitable, meaningful manner. Actually, this is really just a brief preview--or review--of terms and posts that I will--or have already--put up. So stay tuned.

Patriot

Maybe it's just because of a certain political party that seems to claim this--although if you look at their platform they more closely resemble the Tories of past and current generations--or maybe it's because of a certain pundit who has a portion of his show dedicated to comparing "Pinheads" to "Patriots," but either way, this term really irks me. More often than not, "Patriot" is used as an ennobling and endearing form of the dreaded "Nationalist," or at least "someone who agrees with me."

Don't misunderstand here: a person can both be patriotic and have nationalistic tendencies. But they are not necessarily mutually inclusive descriptors. I love America and the ideas for which it was founded by a bunch of rebels who claimed to be patriots, I celebrate the 4th of July and although I don't like football or baseball, I do love a good basketball game. I would hope that would include me in a list of patriotic people. However, my definition of "American" is very unlike what you would consider a nationalistic definition.

It's sad and mildly despicable. It stems from a "with us/against us" policy that isn't necessarily how things actually work. Just because I don't support the Tea Party on any issue doesn't mean that I don't love America and that I'm unpatriotic. I wish I could say that I'd be willing to die for my country, but that's one of those bridges that will have to be crossed when I come to it. I am, however, delighted to live for my country and work to make it a better place.

Judgmental

This is a fun one. Whereas Conservatives tend to use "Patriot" to hail heroes and "unpatriotic, un-American" to besmirch political foes, I find that it's Liberals who use "Judgmental" or "Judging" to vilify in turn.

Again, it comes from a "with us/against us" attitude. Just because I don't want to live your lifestyle does not mean that I'm "judging" you. In fact, it's deeply hypocritical to think so. Obviously, you don't want to live mine but you're willing to just look over that because you're perfect the way you are and there's no conceivable reason why I don't want to be like you. Virgins become "prudes," sober people become "too good for you" and Pro-Lifers become "sexists." And "Judge not that ye be not judged" suddenly becomes "I'm right and you hate me." To quote Porgy and Bess ironically and out of context, "It ain't necessarily so."

Tyranny and Freedom

I'm going to try really hard to be impartial and objective on this one, but under the current majority/minority status of the country, it's going to be hard.

We have a tendency to use the word "freedom" to mean "the ability to do anything I want" and "tyranny" comes to mean "anything that stops me from doing what I want." Neither is really correct. Obama is not and Bush was not a tyrant. Being able to have an AK-47 or have a legal, court-allowed marriage is not freedom. Nobody has received a bullet to the head--from the government--for speaking out against either administration. Nobody has a reason for living in fear of the government (except criminals, etc.). It's always entertaining when you run across websites with people that scream about how Obama is going to come after people that speak out against him because he's a dictator. Seems like a bad idea to me.

A Sunday School teacher pointed this out to the class and I'd like to expound on it. The kinds of debates we have in this country are the debates that a free people have. We're concerned about universal health-care and you can speak out against it without repercussion. We debate legalization of gay marriage when in other countries, gays and lesbians are killed. For the most part, we don't have to worry about how we'll get clean water because our governments are relatively well-functioning and get the water to us. The last time we had a war on our soil was out of living memory. We have money that the government prints and have a very low poverty rate. We have free schools, for goodness's sake! We really do live in a free country, and it's pretty awesome. Don't let people scare you into believing otherwise.

22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

I ran across this on facebook today (by the way, "like" Demormocrat on facebook) and thought it was going to be something actually insightful. Nope. No such luck.

For those of you who didn't bother clicking on the link above, it leads you to a buzzfeed page full of happy, smiling people with messages for Bill Nye and other evolutionists. I've recreated the statements and questions below, complete with spelling and grammatical errors. I've also commented on them. This is just an "amused rant" post. Enjoy.

Bill Nye, Are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?

Perhaps this person has never heard of Bill Nye, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He is Bill Nye, the Science Guy. He is a hero to millions of students the world over. He made science interesting to some of us who would not have otherwise thought so. Is he influencing the minds of children in a positive way? I don't know, he just stands up for what he believes which is fascinating stuff and fun to discuss and research and makes it accessible to anybody, something Christians should take cues.

Are you scared of a Divine Creator?

You don't have to be scared of the idea of a god to disbelieve in one.

Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings...Adam created as an adult...

Apart from the fact that, yes, it absolutely is illogical, just because he doesn't believe it doesn't mean that he has to find it illogical.

Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove Evolution?

I...don't....I don't know.... But I just looked it up and I don't think so. Furthermore, you just used a mainstream scientific principle to argue against another mainstream scientific principle and argue for a creationistic...principle. Not that I'm saying that you're wrong based on that, but it is pretty funny.

How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?

Well, once every 24 hours or so, the Earth does this thing called a rotation as it revolves around the sun, hence creating the "rising" and "falling" perspective that we have on Earth. What you are referring to--I think--is the beautiful colors that we can see during that period of time that we call "a sunset." They are caused by the sun's rays passing through increasing layers of atmosphere as the angle descends...yeah. Never mind.

Also, it's "there" not "their."

If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?

Yeah, I already answered this one...

What about Noetics?

Easy answer for someone who doesn't believe in them: "I don't believe in spirits."

Where do you derive objective meaning in life?

What the heck do you mean by that? Do you mean to insinuate that only creationists can have purpose in life? And what does objectivity necessarily have anything to do with it?

If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?

This is a good argument and I actually agree with her. Stephen Hawking doesn't, however. He estimates that the probability of conditions to be suitable and of life happening are about 1 in X Billion, but with so many planets and solar systems and galaxies and maybe universes out there, many more than X Billion chances have happened and so, according to the laws of probability, it probably will happen. However, I believe that there are many, many worlds out there that are inhabitable and inhabited, many more than what "probability" would dictate.

I believe in the Big Bang Theory...God said BANG and it happened!

Kudos to you.

Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept of inteligent design from aliens or other extra-terestrial scuries? (I think it's supposed to be "sources" but it sure looked like "scuries.")

I have never heard this argument. I have heard of religionists claiming something similar.

But you're correct: it's pretty weird to say "I don't believe in a superterrestrial creator, but I do believe in a superterrestrial creator." I like what Marvel's Agents of SHIELD has to say about the existence of deities or aliens: it's just science that we don't understand yet. I don't believe in a supernatural God, I believe in a God who uses natural laws, principles and phenomena to accomplish His purposes. We just don't understand the science behind it yet. So, random citizen, you're right. It's very self-defeating to argue against people who believe in intelligent design if you yourself believe in intelligent design by a different designer.

There is no in between...the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds neccessary for an "official proof."

Bad, bad, bad logic. You're arguing God like a scientific law but are defeating yourself in your own statement. All it takes to disprove a law is one example that that law cannot account for. So if the existence of God and the reality of Adam and Eve are based on the fact that no proof has surfaced to disprove that humanoids existed before 6000 years ago, then I'm sorry, those "laws" have been disproven. You can argue the evidence and claim that it's faulty. That's fine. But you cannot base an argument off that Lucy was real and lived before Adam and Eve but since she was the "only one"--and by the way she's not--there were no people before Adam and Eve. "Hey, look at that apple in the basket of oranges. There are no apples in that basket of oranges." You'd be better off saying "that apple in the basket of oranges is not actually an apple. It is, in fact, an orange" or even "there is no apple. I don't see an apple."

Does metamorphosis support evolution?

I don't know, does it? Was this a query or a postulated argument like the rest of them? And if it is, then how in the heck does that prove anything? So some organisms evolved with metamorphosis. What's the big deal?

If Evolution is a Theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is Evolution taught as a fact?

I've actually never had a teacher teach it as a fact, only as a theory that his or her students had to understand if they are to progress in the scientific arena. One teacher even told a small group of us of her devout belief in God. She realized that she was surrounded by religious kids and thought it appropriate to share in that situation.

However, Creationism is a belief indigenous to the faithful of a few selected religions, no matter how majority those religions are. If you are going to present one religion's view of the Creation, then--to be equitable in a nonsectarian education system--you must present them all. I am okay if a teacher says that it's fine if students choose to opt out of certain projects for religious reasons or if they mention that there are certain other points of view out there or even if a teacher has a "debate day" or something where a creationist could share his or her beliefs about the Creation.

Because science by definition is a "theory"--not testable, observable, nor repeatable" why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?

Because the government cannot promote any single set of religious beliefs. To do so would cross a line of separation of church and state.

And what do you mean, "not testable, observable nor repeatable?" We did all of those things in physics, in environmental science, basic biology and Earth science and though I never took chemistry or advanced biology I know that they did testing, observing and repeating in those classes. I know that that's how real scientists do it as well. So maybe you can't prove evolution. But you can't prove creation, either. Why do you object to evolution being taught in school?

What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?

Good argument.

What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?

Straw man. Absolute, straight-up straw-man. Yes, they are related things, the Atonement and the Creation. However, you're ignoring all the many variants and nuanced beliefs that are the gray area between the extreme religionists and the extreme secularists. You're ignoring that many people find purpose in life without the idea of salvation and you're ignoring that in many belief systems--and many religious systems--salvation is not the end goal. You're view is "either God created the world without evolution and we're here to be saved or God didn't create the world and there is no point to life." Come back when you have a better argument.

Why have we found only 1 "Lucy", when we have found more than 1 of everything else?

You mean like we've found more than one god?

Can you believe in "the big bang" without "faith"?

....Huh? What are you saying? Are you saying that belief in a Big Bang requires hope and effort or are you saying that the Big Bang had faith or are you saying that without faith in God no person can believe in a Big Bang? Because all of those are pretty preposterous. Or are you merely pointing out that belief in "the big bang"--nice use of quotation marks, by the way--is in itself a belief system and therefore a "faith" of a sorts? Because that goes without saying. Did you think a "huminist" from earlier would be scared into believing by the thought that they have "faith" in something other than God?

How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It's Amazing!!!

Good point, but sorry, you're not going to convince anyone who listens to reason and data, not their...whatever it is you listen to. Maybe the Spirit. So while I agree with you, don't bring it up in an actually debate.

Relating to the big bang theory....Where did the exploding star come from?

First of all, it wasn't a star that went boom. I mean bang. It was a speck of infinitely compacted matter that expanded and is still expanding. But your point is actually pretty good. It's also unanswerable. "It came from God. Well, where did God come from? Well he was created by another God. Well where did that God come from?" Wait, this sounds familiar. Like maybe LDS doctrine.

Just kidding, that's not the only conclusion you could come up with. But it is one that Mormons have been preaching long before this whole Big Bang thing was brought up. Like, almost a century before it even came across a scientific journal.

If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

Stop talking right there. You obviously didn't do your homework and don't understand natural selection. You are walking proof of why creationists should support evolution being taught in school: if nothing else, to be more useful in debating.

Unfortunately, that was the last one.

May I just say, I don't understand why this is an issue. I believe some things in the Bible and Pearl of Great Price aren't to be taken literally. I believe God told His prophets and people stories to better understand cosmological phenomena that they wouldn't otherwise have comprehended. Can you imagine if God told Moses about single-celled organisms? The Israelites would have high-tailed it back to Egypt and left Moses in the desert with a skin of water and a hunk of bread.

It's also a moot point. What happened happened. Nothing we say or debate over here has any bearing on that and no bearing on how we should live our lives. We should all try to be the best people we can no matter what happened 20 bajillion years ago.

One last note: this is one reason I study "other" religions. The more I learn about others' versions of the Creation, the more I feel I understand it.

On the Other Hand

There's been a lot of stuff flying around my facebook lately about abortion. I'm friends with people on both extremes of the issue. I've said in the past that I'm both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice as they are not mutually exclusive ideologies, but because of recent posts and diatribes I've had to revisit the issue for myself.

This is the LDS Church's official stand. Tell me if you think anything I say in here disagrees with it:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions. The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct. The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

Notice the total political neutrality. If anything--and I've stated this before--this statement eerily echoes what Presidential Candidate Obama said way back when: that the decision to abort should be a discussion between a woman and her ecclesiastical leader.

First of all, I would like to state that this should not be a good-feminist bad-feminist argument. I whole-heartedly believe that someone could be liberal as anybody and as feminist as any glass-ceiling shatterer and still be virulently Pro-Life. Just because somebody does not think that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion does not necessarily make them a misogynistic bigot. Just because somebody thinks that she should does not necessarily make her a feminist.

Secondly, understand that I'm working off of this premise: No woman does abortion "for fun." Nobody has sex with the intention of killing an unborn child. Under any circumstances, the whole process will be traumatizing and in any case we should show compassion and love for anybody going through a pregnancy either wanted or unwanted and also for anybody choosing to terminate and we should not treat them as we might a murderer, though I do very strongly believe that we should love murderers as well.

Thirdly, with few exceptions, nobody is "Pro-Abortion." I've heard of one person who thought the state should pay women to terminate, but he is very wrong and also a very, very small minority. Most everyone Pro-Choice--including and especially Hillary Clinton and President Obama--would actually rather see women go through adoptions or avoid pregnancy because unwanted pregnancy and abortion--whether or not it's moral or wrong--is not a pleasant or good process for anybody to go through.

Fourthly, no matter what other legislation goes through, we should dramatically increase the financial and legal responsibilities of baby daddies. Women are biologically responsible for reproduction. We can't change that. What we can change is how men legally carry their responsibility.

I have one friend whom I respect very much but claims that abortion for any reason should be illegal and punishable. That much I definitely disagree with. I can't speak from experience, obviously, but I imagine that a pregnancy and delivery from a rape would be a terribly traumatic experience. While it's good to consider the health and life of the fetus, we must also consider the woman's life and health. I've run into people that claim that a woman who has been raped should feel the moral obligation to deliver that child. That response is totally uncompassionate and narrow-minded. So while I can respect if you disagree with me on the idea that a raped woman should have the option of termination and I think you can have a good point there, I cannot respect the belief that they should feel any obligation to anyone by dint of conceiving during rape.

I also have a problem with this argument: "My mother was told by her doctor to abort the pregnancy and she decided not to and here I am! Therefore, abortion should be illegal." Yes, we are all very glad that you and she both survived. Or if she didn't, we are sorry that you lived life without her and we praise her bravery for going through with it. However, she chose that. If anything, that should be a Pro-Choice argument. "My mother chose to allow me to live in spite of the danger. Therefore, all women ought to be allowed the same right."

Furthermore, one case or even a thousand cases of women surviving against the odds to deliver their child is not enough. The previous argument ignores the hundreds of thousands of cases of women who are not allowed the ability to abort who die because of complications or who choose to go through with it even though they know they could choose the safer way. But nobody is here to argue their side. The survival cases--guess what--survived to tell the world of the evils of abortion. The ones who didn't--either mother or child--didn't and if they survived because of a life-saving abortion, they are often too ashamed to speak up about it.

On the other hand--and here I'm going to sound like Tevye, going back and forth--I don't necessarily believe that just because a woman was raped or because her life is in danger that she should automatically opt for termination. Pro-Choice is not "Pro-Abortion" or "Pro-Death." Pro-Choice is about the woman in question being able to decide for herself to take control of her own health. On the other hand, we should not ignore the health and well-being of the unborn.

I don't believe that life begins right at conception. That's just it. I don't have any data to back that up, that's just what I believe. However, I also don't believe that life begins at birth either. Actually, we already have a legal definition of "life." It comes from the other end--death--and how we got to that legal definition is a fascinating discussion. It has to do with heart transplants and cadavers and lawsuits, but that's another subject. Anyway, the legal definition of dead is "brain dead," or when the doctors can no longer detect brain activity. Why don't we apply that to fetuses? Not that it'll solve any debates but it'll definitely clear up a lot of the foggy discourse.

So all rape and health-wise cases aside, one half of me is thinking that maybe we should make "optional" abortion legal for before six weeks. That should hopefully give time for a woman to decide. On the other hand, that might lead to more home-abortions. And I'd rather have a desperate woman get the clean, sterile, clinic abortion than it be done with a hanger in a dirty subway bathroom. And for that, abortions need to be legal. A woman should not have to go through nine months of red tape and government paperwork either to get the treatment she needs. And for that, abortions need to be legal. On the other hand, I do think we should at some point put down our foot and say that the child is too far developed. What's the difference between aborting a pregnancy one day after birth and one day before birth? The child is a physical parasite one day before, but are they actually any more than that one day after? And yet you will find no person arguing for post-delivery termination. That is inarguably infanticide. On the other hand...well, reread the article for that "other hand."

At this point, somebody's going to start raging about how Obamacare and abortion and Planned Parenthood and tax-payers' money, blah blah blah. Look, I disagree with the government using my money--even though I haven't yet had a tax season that I didn't get a 100% return--to support war over diplomacy. If you don't like it, lobby to change it. That's how everyone else does it. Somebody else will start talking about federal funding to religious hospitals and religious freedom infringements. Sorry, if you don't want to follow federal guidelines, don't accept federal funds.

In short, I'm still Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. As a people, we should not ignore the health and well-being needs of either the woman or the fetus and we should take both into account when deciding. We should, however, focus on avoiding the situation. Better sex education in schools, for one. Many, many studies show that districts with "safe-sex" philosophies have lower pregnancy and abortion rates. Same for schools with five-day school weeks, actually.

And now, let me be absolutely clear: no matter what a woman's choice is, let us support her and love her and care for her. We don't necessarily have to agree with her choice, but she doesn't need judgments at that point in her life. She needs love.

PS--I tried finding an appropriate picture for this. Turns out, not possible. Don't try it.

Mission Paper Update

I had my last interview on Sunday, so that letter from Salt Lake will be coming in the next two to six weeks or so. Hopefully closer to two than to six. I guess that's all that I have to say about that.