Right to Life?

I recently had a conversation with someone over social media about a very divided topic; abortion. I was trying to understand something I had heard recently and during the course of this conversation, I learned some interesting things and these things I think lead down a scary path so I wanted to share.

I asked how anyone who believes, trusts, and uses sciences can support abortion. Science has given criteria to determine if something is living or inanimate. Humans, and human cells, are both considered living by these standards. The minute the sperm and egg combine, a zygote is formed. At no time in this process does either the sperm, the egg, or the forming zygote cease to be living. This zygote has a different set of genes than either parent. This qualifies it as a separate being from the mother. While the mother is the host and allows the zygote/embryo/fetus to grow and survive, the zygote/embryo/fetus is a living entity separate from the mother.

This is how I believe and how I understand what I have learned. In this conversation, the other person was trying to explain their beliefs. First, they claimed that the zygote/embryo couldn't be considered living as it has no brain wave activity/neural activity. However, this isn't a classification for something to be considered living. They then tried to determine when a zygote/embryo should be considered living by determining when a human is considered dead. This approach doesn't make much sense to me. Cells are living. When they combine, they don't die. They don't not live for any amount of time.

While I appreciated someone taking the time and sharing the research they had found, I didn't agree. Mostly because they were changing definitions to meet the criteria they were studying. Researching to find things that they subjectively determined.

The part of the conversation that frightened me the most was when they shared how some scientists are trying to determine what they call a "right to life." When should something be "living" or "alive enough" to have the right to remain so. Why this is so scary is because now this living, unborn fetus somehow doesn't have the "right to life" so then its ok for us to kill it. As this was explained to me in our conversation, I was shocked. The first thing that came into my head was "Isn't this exactly what started the U.S. and German eugenics programs? Isn't this why there was slavery? Isn't thinking like this what lead to so many other horrible things in history?"

If you don't know, eugenics is "the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics" (Google dictionary).  This was practiced during times of slavery to try and create stronger, healthier slaves. Generally done in awful ways such as forced rape of slaves. At the beginning of the 20th century, the U.S. and Germany worked on a different eugenics program. This program was forced sterilization of persons who were considered mentally slow or of lower intelligence. It was all in the name of doing what was best for society; increasing intelligence, removing those who would be considered a burden, etc.

Abortion is turning into this same thing. Iceland and Denmark are having record low incidences of children with Down syndrome being born because their healthcare systems require doctors to offer genetic testing that can identify genetic irregularities. The majority of mothers-to-be receive this testing and then almost all of these women are aborting the fetuses determined to have issues. All of this is covered by their healthcare. And all in the name of removing some "undue burden" on the mother. (I have heard the "undue burden" debate in other conversations about abortion meaning the state or government doesn't have the power to take away a woman's right to an abortion given the undue burdens of emotional, fiscal, physical and other stresses pregnancy and subsequent birth place on a woman.)

I just don't understand how one group of people can arbitrarily decide when someone else has the "right to life".

God and Science; Laws and Agency

Because of science, we know there are natural laws all around us that governs nature. Laws are systems of rules that constitute how nature will behave. Some of these laws are the law of gravity, law of conservation of mass, laws of thermodynamic. These are set and unchanging. The only way to change the outcome is to change the input. For example, the amount of gravity present on a celestial body, like a moon or planet is determined by the mass and speed at which it rotates. This is why humans would seemingly weigh less or more on different planets; its due to the amount of gravity acting upon their body.

I believe in God. I believe He created all things. Many people believe this contradicts everything in science but I would disagree. What if God knew ALL the laws of nature and science, even ones we haven't discovered yet? Suppose He understood how changing one factor in the equation would determine the outcome. If He does have all that knowledge then wouldn't He be able to use that knowledge to control the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and then life of those planets? Isn't that what our scientists do now in experiments; they take the information about the laws they have, change parts of the equation until they receive the desired outcome?

As part of the plan of salvation, God gave us agency, the ability and privilege to choose and act for ourselves and not to be acted upon. I believe this is because we learn better, grow faster (intellectually and emotionally), and remember the lessons more as we choose to work and study and even make mistakes. While this allows us to progress better, it also means that He cannot control the outcomes of our choices without violating these laws. Sadly, this is why some people claim that God is not loving, that God is changing, or that He doesn't exist; why would He allow bad things to happen?

However, one of God's purposes is to help us, His children, progress and return to Him. Now since God knows and understands how all these laws work and what the outcomes will be in given situations, I'm sure He knows what will affect us, both our spirits and physical bodies, in ways that would prevent us from returning to Him. For this reason, He gave and continues to give commandments and counsel to prophets in order to help us follow natural laws that we don't understand yet. Sometimes it is hard when there is a commandment that we don't understand or we can't see the direct, indirect, immediate or delayed effect of not obeying that commandment, but that is why God has asked us to have faith. He asks that we trust Him and we trust that He truly wants what is best for us, regardless of what the societal norms may be at the time.

As I was writing this, another thought came to mind. How fair is grading, judgment, or scoring when its subjective? As humans, we know how hard being impartial can be. So what if having these laws allows God's judgment to change from being subjective to objective meaning the outcomes of of our choices are solely determined on the choices we make in this life?

If we see as God sees or understand laws as God does, would we make the same choices? If we could know the definitive outcome of our choices, would we make the same ones?

Additional scripture resources: Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 2, Alma 42

God is an explanation! (Does God exist: part 2)

Sometimes I wish I knew a bit more about computer algorithms but most of the time I'm ok as long as they work right. I'm not sure how, I mean I have a small idea/theory bit it, but on the explore option on Instagram I have been seeing some strange accounts pop-up based on what I "like" and what I follow. These are posts about extreme political affiliations, holistic or vegan lifestyles, conspiracy theories, and atheism. On occasion, I read them and even sometimes I have commented. I like learning about what other people think and why.

But what made me want to add to an earlier post was some internal insight I gained while looking at one of these posts. It was from an atheist account. The post starts with "'God' is not an explanation." I couldn't comment on the account because it would take too much space but also I have tried that before and although the owner claims "question everything" and "open mindedness" they are unwilling to hear anything about God that goes against their current beliefs. I still wanted to share how I see things.

I say God is an explanation. What I am about to explain are my personal opinions (as I state frequently) but it also a theory, one that has evidences and not much proof.

The Bible teaches that God is all-knowing. Given that assumption, wouldn't He know exactly how and why all the laws of nature and science work? Wouldn't He know how to influence or introduce catalysts in ways that would organize and form worlds, bring about life, and cause life to evolve? With this, wouldn't He know which laws would benefit us and which could hurt us?

The Bible also teaches that God is just and no respecter of persons. That means we, everyone, gets what they deserve (cause and effect) and He doesn't play favorites. Now say someone is more willing to listen and follows His commandments (which are meant to lead and direct us to keeping the laws of nature that benefit us), it seems like a blessing to believers and that God favors them but to non-believers simple good fortune. Are there non-believers who inadvertently obey these laws (and the corresponding commandments) who still receive the same benefits as the believers? Yes. He is not respecter of persons. They met the requirements for the law to take affect.

Because God is just, He obeys the laws. He gave us agency and allows us to learn from and deal with the consequences of our's and other's choices. He will not interfere with these laws but will offer guidance on what to do to set the right conditions for the laws to give the desired results. Faith and gifts of the spirit are seemingly possible outcomes to obeying certain laws that allow the person the ability to use knowledge God has to perform miracles as seen in miracles of healing and such.

His desire is for us to learn and understand these laws. To connect how life acts and interacts. Some of the answers are their within reach and some are a little farther out for the time being.

Do I know, understand, or have explanations that happen for everything? No I don't. But I believe that God does. I believe that one day I have the potential to know as He does. That is why I have faith and that is why I trust His counsels. God is an explanation especially when science tells us that something is near impossible/highly improbable.

Plan of Salvation - After death

"... but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin

Death is definitively certain in this world. There aren't many who have escaped it. However, death is part of the plan of salvation. The way the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints understand death is simple. Since we are made up of an eternal spirit and a mortal body, death is the eternal spirit leaving our body. The mortal body remains here and the spirit travels to another place. 

The way I understand it is our spirit then goes the spirit world, to either a temporary paradise or prison based on our life choices. Spirit paradise is a place where we will rest from daily cares and problems. We won't be plagued by physical infirmities however we will long for our bodies and we still won't be back with God, yet. Other spirits will be sent to a spirit prison. I imagine these spirits feel trapped and guilt ridden because of their choices. While paradise and prison sound similar to traditional views of heaven and hell, there are distinct differences. The spirit world is a temporary gathering place; not a permanent assignment. I imagine rather than being a place of perfectness or of punishment, paradise and prison are more mental than actual places. (Alma 40:7-14, 21)

After spending time in the spirit world, everyone at their appointed time, will be resurrected. Everyone who received a physical body that is. These bodies will look like our bodies now because they are our bodies but they will be perfected according to the laws of nature. (Alma 11:40-45.) We can expect this because Jesus Christ broke the bands of death and gifted it to us, as reward for following him in the pre-mortal life. What a glorious gift, that we might all have perfect physical bodies for eternity!

The scriptures talk about both death and hell. Above I said that spirit prison isn't quite like the traditional hell, so what do I believe about hell? While death is the separation of our physical bodies from our spirits, hell is the separation of our spirits from God, or Heavenly Father.  This hell, sometimes referred to as spiritual death, has been overcome by Jesus Christ as well. However whether or not we receive this gift or not depends on our faithfulness during the current Earth life. If we can follow His laws and commandments, He will unlock the gates of the spiritual death that would keep us from returning to live with God. 

After being resurrected, everyone will stand before God to be judged on how well we obeyed the laws. Justice will be served and since we don't obey all the laws all the time, we should be punished. However, like I said before, Jesus Christ already paid for the times we broke the law. He accepted our punishment if we accept Him and because He loves us, if we do those things He has asked us to do in this Earth life, He will step forward during judgment and provide us with mercy. He will show we have completed the terms of our agreement from our end and that He already paid for our sins and we will be forgiven. 

Once our worthiness has been determined, we will be given a reward of living in a kingdom of glory in accordance with what we learned and did during Earth life. These kingdoms vary and what we will receive and can do depend on what kingdom we live in. However, all kingdoms of glory will be better than this life because of the knowledge we will have, the bodies we will have, and the people we will be with. At the end of it all, we will know that God was just in determining where we will live. 

This is why I feel such love and hope during life, even during times of struggle. This is why member of the Church often don't mourn the same as when someone dies. Yes we are sad and we definitely miss them but there is still so much to look forward to and to hope for. Death and separation are not permanent. They are a small road block.

I know there are probably still questions and holes to be filled. Details that many of us wonder about. When I feel I am dwelling on these, I remember to think "will knowing the answer change how I believe?" Will knowing where these places are or what they look like or how long it will all take change any of the information I already have? No it won't and so for now, I choose to trust God and believe that like any good father, He wants me to learn, grow, and obtain the best I can but I can only do this by accepting His help and guidance. 

Love and support...?

I have had a few debates/arguments within the past few months on Facebook. I actually started the debates/picked the fights. I did this because the people I was debating had decided to bad mouth, name call, and other similar things people who voted for Donald Trump. However, I wasn't upset or offended because I voted for him. I did not vote for him. I was upset because I have friends and family who did vote for him. I don't know all of the reasons why they chose to support him. What I do know is that someone who disagreed with my friends' or family members' choice was mocking, "disowning", and belittling my friends and family. So I stood up for them. Sadly, in 2 of the instances the person/people who were saying such things about Trump voters have/had close relationships with the people they were talking about. In one of instances, they all but mentioned the person they were treating so disrespectfully by name.

Here are the list of reasons why these people acted so horridly towards others (according to what they said to me):

1. Their opinions or reasons are stupid and are invalid so I don't have to acknowledge them. 
2. They chose what they did and have to live with that choice of choosing hate. 
3. Trump is evil and they are supporting evil. 
4. If they were a real (the person's ethnicity) they wouldn't even consider voting for him.
5. I am standing up for what is right while they are in the wrong. 

I am sure there are more but this is what I am drawing from memory of how the conversations made me feel. 

These interactions have left me feeling bothered; not because of what was said to me in the moment or what I said in return. What bothered, and continues to bother me, is the lack of love and understanding being shown. 

As I have previously written about, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and based on what I have learned from the teachings of the Church I think tattooing your body shows a lack of respect for your body and God's creations. I think drinking alcohol and taking certain drugs (marijuana, crack, meth, etc.) impair thinking and acting which prevents you from using agency properly. For moral reasons, I don't think abortion should be legal. The list could go on. However, here is my point and one I believe that Jesus Christ taught. We can disagree without being rude or disagreeable. We can love and support without agreeing or condoning the choices that person makes. I try to encourage others to not do those things I think are wrong or sinful even if it means supporting laws that seem to limit choice or freedom. If asked about it, I would try to teach them what I believe and why and then encourage them to change their lives to better follow God's commandments. And here's the big BUT...even if they don't change or if they don't ask, I'm not going to end friendships, point fingers and mock, or anything else that might jeopardize those relationships. If its a person with whom I don't currently have any type of relationship, I will still try my best to treat them with love, respect, and kindness.

Somehow people have decided that in order to love someone, you must agree and accept their life choices. I don't buy into that. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. Jesus Christ showed compassion for all but it didn't stop him from chastising the woman caught in adultery or from throwing tables and throwing out the money changers at the temple. He didn't agree with what these people did. He loved them and did what He thought was necessary for for them to change. 

Seeing the Bigger Picture: Evidence versus Proof

A while back I posted about how I like doing puzzles. I have a puzzle app where many of the puzzles don't show the entire picture to start out. As I start one of these puzzles, I try to guess what the picture might be. Sometimes this is quite easy and others, I was more than halfway done before I realized what was going on.

I believe there is often a bigger picture to be seen than the small puzzle pieces we seem to focus on. As parts are connected and come together, we can see and understand what that picture is and start to understand the effect it will have on our lives.

One of the things I have noticed about society is the need for data and information to support our belief as to where a puzzle piece fits, how it fits, why it fits, or even simply what it is, or data and information to oppose another person's belief that we don't agree with or believe ourselves.

Two similar concepts that have helped me in forming opinions and seeing where pieces fit into the picture are the scientific method and (my very basic understanding of) the proceedings in a court of law.

The way I understand it, a law, for both science and in court rooms, is the absolute at the given point. In science, this is because it has been proven. In a court room, this is because the law makers have decided this is what they feel is best for the benefit of society (or depending on your point of view, the best to keep them in office). Laws in science very rarely change. Laws in the legal sense change, it seems, about as often as the wind changes.

However, when trying to understand something, anything really, it seems as though you can use a process similar to either legal proceedings or the scientific method to determine an outcome.

Both start with an idea or question of what happened or what will happen. Then comes research, discovery, data collection. Now you can create an hypothesis which is a suggested outcome based on the data and information collected. At the testing phase, you see if your hypothesis will hold up. In a court, this depends on many human variables. Science is generally in a slightly more controlled environment. Now, either the judge or jury for a court of law or you if conducting an experiment can analyze results and draw conclusions.

While some people have a firm grasp on this part of the concept, the piece I find many forget is the difference between proof and evidence. Proof means there is no way to show any other alternative or come to a different conclusion. Evidence is just something that points towards, leads to, or gives hint of a possible conclusion.

In a court of law, DNA is proof. No one (except clones and maybe identical twins) shares DNA. So you can't claim that DNA isn't yours. However, depending on where the DNA was found and what source it came from, alternate theories of how it got there can be given. Science has only a few laws; gravity and thermodynamics are the only 2 that come immediately to mind. However, similar to law, these laws are only in force given certain criteria.

On the other hand, evidence only points or nudges to a certain outcome. The legal system gives instructions on how much weight evidence should hold when making a decision and how far decided on that outcome you should be before coming to a decision; for example, preponderance of evidence, reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt. In science, usually the outcome needs to be repeated several times with the same outcome or the end data needs to be scientifically significant.

The reason I wanted to talk about all of this is too many people in debates or arguments over political, societal, and moral topics treat evidence as proof. Or in collecting data and information, they saw trends and simply skipped straight to draw conclusions. I have seen people who ignore the opposing party's evidence because it doesn't fit. Sometimes during testing, they allowed too many variables or didn't have a control group to compare their data against.

Doing these things blurs the edges of each puzzle piece and makes it appear as though the piece fits when it really doesn't. I have done a puzzle with 1 or 2 pieces in the wrong spot and struggled to complete the puzzle. One puzzle I was actually convinced there was a piece missing from the brand new box rather than the simpler conclusion of a piece out of place. Being open minded to other possibilities helps us not fall into this problem of being convinced we are always right or the only one right, when it may be us who has the piece in the wrong place.