Why Even if you are pro-choice you should be angry with Planned Parenthood

Posted on by
Reply

Why would anyone who is pro-choice be against or at least angry with Planned Parenthood? I would simply say that Planned Parenthood is a poorly run business.

Aside from anything having to do with abortions Planned Parenthood has all the makings of a business gone wrong. Put simply Planned Parenthood has performed almost 2 million less services in 2015 compared to 2005 according to their annual reports, while receiving an $250 million increase in government aka taxpayer money. In other words taxpayers are giving Planned Parenthood 82% more money to they are receiving about 20% less services. Any company that has a cost increase of 82% and a 20% customer loss I would think would be considered as moving in the wrong direction in the business world.

governmentServices

 

Looking at the details: Planned Parenthood has decreased it’s contraceptive services by a million, a decrease of over a million in cancer screenings, though that may mainly be due to a lower requirement for cancer screenings (every three years instead of every year), and finally a decrease of just less than a million of their ‘other’ services.

Picture1
So why should you be opposed to Planned Parenthood even if you are pro-choice? Because Planned Parenthood isn’t doing a good job at providing the services that our government funding is supposed to be helping with. Planned Parenthood is decreasing their services while increases their costs to the American taxpayer, that’s simply not how it should be working. If we have increased our support of Planned Parenthood by 84% we should see at least a production increase rather than the decrease that has happened over the past 10 years.

Perhaps you still believe we should support Planned Parenthood, but at least realize that they need to make some drastic changes for this to continue to be worth it. If Planned Parenthood keeps on this trend they won’t even be providing STD and STI testing in 50 years!

If you want to see this data for yourself you can see the 2015 annual report here and the 2005 annual report here.

If I did any of the numbers wrong please let me know.

An Atheist explains the difference between a cult and a religion.

Posted on by
Reply

Often atheists will associate all religions with being cults. In this video Hemant Mehta, an atheist YouTuber and blogger gives what I believe is a fair assessment of the differences between cults and religions.

 

Why Moral Relativism Doesn’t Work

Posted on by
4

One of the most common debates I find myself in with people is whether or not morality is absolute. It is remarkable to me how much the view that morality is relative has permiated our culture, it seems, from my experience to be the most popular view. What is interesting is that it seems in the philosophical world moral relativism is the laughing stock of ethical philosophy. Perhaps I am wrong about this, I only took two undergraduate level ethics classes, and when I hear about it in my current masters level classes I’ll acknowledge its bias. Either way I thought it would be good to lay out several of what I find to be the most clear reasons Moral Relativism falls short of a practical or philosophical Ethical viewpoint.

You cannot use terms of moral improvement
The fact is, if morality is relative then we cannot say morality has ever improved. It has changed, it is different, but once you say it has improved you are saying that it is not merely different, but better. And the only way that it can be better, is if it is closer to an objective standard, or a perfect morality. You may say you like the current morality more than one of the past which included slavery, but this reduces you to a preference. You may as well say you like vanilla ice cream over chocolate, but you cannot say it is better. It would only be different. Different in a way you prefer, but not in a way that one should prefer. If one should prefer it than once again you have implied an objective outside of yourself standard.

 

One cannot be morally right in every culture they are a part of
If morality is relative to a persons culture which changes in time, and place than how do we dictate which cultural morality one should follow when they contradict? No one is part of simply one culture. They have the culture of their family, their friends, their school, place of worship, the country they live in, the country they are from etc. If one is a part of two cultures, say an immigrant should they follow the culture they live in or the culture they are from? By choosing one over the other are they then morally wrong in one culture they are part of and morally right for the other? Doesn’t that mean it becomes impossible to really do right altogether? You will always be morally wrong for one culture you are a part of.
As per the point above you may also see that in chosing one culture over the other you have said that one culture’s morality is better than another.

 

One cannot make moral judgements. . . AT ALL
If morality is relative you cannot say that something is wrong, only that it is wrong for you, or for your culture. For instance, to pick something that most moral relativists will squirm at: if morality is relative then in certain cultures it would be morally right to kill a homosexual, because that is that cultures moral view of what should be done to someone who practices homosexuality. If the moral relativist steps in to say its wrong to kill homosexuals they are asserting that there is an objective moral standard that, whether a culture accepts it or not, exists, and should be followed.

To clarify, I am not saying we should kill homosexuals, nor do I believe so. This is only to make a point.

Now I anticipate that some Moral Relativists at this may say that it is their opinion that homosexuals should not be killed, and that they simply disagree with this man, but this is different than talking about my ice cream preference. I may believe that chocolate ice cream is the best, I may also believe that everyone should think that chocolate ice cream is the best, but morality goes one step further. Not only would I believe that chocolate ice cream is the best and that everyone should believe it is the best, but I would believe that someone is morally wrong to not believe that chocolate ice cream is the best. When the Moral Relitavist says that killing homosexuals is wrong they are saying “I believe you are wrong to kill homosexuals, you should believe killing homosexuals is wrong, and if you believe killing homosexuals is wrong you are morally wrong”. This is not merely an opinion anymore it is an appeal to what they believe is the absolute standard and therefore an acknowledgement that morality is not relative but objective.

This is a bit longer than many of my posts but I feel it is a quick summary of what I believe is one of the most debated issues of today. I think if you can remember these three points you will see that morality must be objective.

Atheism and The Purpose of Life

Posted on by
12

One of the many objections we as Christians bring up in opposition to an atheistic worldview is that life cannot have purpose. If there exists no creator, no one that created humanity with a specific design with a specific purpose then we cannot go on to say that life has any real purpose or meaning. In the end we must simply eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die and there is nothing left after that.

Atheists object to this point saying that they can create purpose themselves. They can create purpose by creating their own goals, their own wants and achievements. But does this really amount to anything?

Continue reading →

Why We Need Apologetics

Posted on by
2

For the longest time I used to think tracts were a horrible way of evangelizing and reaching out non-believers. To me it seemed confronting and ineffective. In fact I had never heard of a person that had come to Christ from reading a tract, I only heard stories of people being annoyed even angered by the flyers. That all changed when I was in Nepal and I met pastor Meg. Long story short, Meg was at the end of his rope and found himself digging through trash for food. He found a tract and after reading it over he dedicated his life to Christ and now is a pastor in Nepal.

The reason I start with this is I know there are a lot of people who believe that apologetics is ineffective in reaching people and perhaps even more damaging than helpful. Thinking of Meg I would first offer to say, God can work in ways that you may not think are ineffective.

Furthermore, I would challenge the belief that apologetics is ineffective. I’ve been a part of a apologetics ministry called Ratio Christi for only about six months and we have one student who has already come to the Lord from the work we are doing. Many very well known Christians have come to the Lord as the result of apologetic related conversations, C. S. Lewis, Josh McDowel, Lee Strobel, and others. Granted many of these many are champions of Apologetics so it may seem this argument is circular, but I would say they are champions of apologetics because it was the way the Lord reached them, and perhaps they would have never known the Lord otherwise.

I know many object to apologetics because they feel that it is confrontative or combative, and as a result unloving. My question ‘where does this non-confrontive, non-combative evangelism play out in the Gospels and Epistles?’ Frankly, I don’t see it. Jesus is very combative with the Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul also doesn’t shy away from some argument and confrontation. I know argument and debate is uncomfortable for a lot of people but just because it isn’t comfortable doesn’t mean it’s wrong. In fact some of the best and most important things in life are uncomfortable. In fact our greatest leaders are the ones that were doing apologetics for what they believed in. Martin Luther King argued and debated with others, he reasoned with them. Gandhi, William Wallace,  Winston Churchill, they all lived lives of confrontation. It was because of that confrontation that they are the leaders that we look up to now.

Think of you’re greatest heroes, where would they be without defending what they believed in? Would you really call them your hero anymore? Apologetics is the Greek word for defense. So anyone that you look up to that has defended something, verbally, physically or otherwise is an apologist. So if you have this problem with apologetics perhaps you should think over what you really have a problem with a bit more. Just a thought.

Why I like talking with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons

Posted on by
Reply

I think there are many Christians who feel intimidated to talk to Jehovah Witnesses’ and Mormons. Most of the time we realize that the missionaries from those religions have done a lot of studying and preparing to share about their faith and we find that intimidating because we feel like we haven’t done much of that ourselves. But I wanted to challenge you to think of this differently.

Continue reading →