#DefundPP ASAP: Urge your senators to vote yes on S.1881

#DefundPP #PPSellsBabyParts

Slavery on demand and without apology!
Genocide on demand and without apology!
Abortion on demand and without apology!
Please read: https://books.google.com/books?id=8InGE7lTy08C&q=%22look+here+now+boys%22#v=snippet&q=%22look%20here%20now%20boys%22&f=false

The Senate is voting at 5:30pm EST to potentially defund Planned Parenthood after the abortion giant was exposed as illegally adapting procedures, sometimes using partial birth abortion, to profit from the sell of organs. Some say this is pointless because Obama will veto, but our senators need to know the rational American voice is strongly opposed to what Planned Parenthood is doing. See my last post for an introduction, and more things you can do. It would be encouraging if you would reply once you take action.

Here’s what I’m up to on this, and I hope you’ll get up to it, too, if you’re not already:

Here are the senators to contact, beyond your own: Susan Collins​, Joe Manchin III​, Joe Donnelly​, Heidi Heitkamp​, Robert P. Casey, Jr.​, Lisa Murkowski​, Mark Kirk​ (here’s why)

Here are their Twitter accounts: @SenatorCollins @Sen_JoeManchin @SenDonnelly @SenatorHeitkamp @SenBobCasey @lisamurkowski @SenatorKirk

Take the challenge! All 100 Senators: @lisamurkowski @SenDanSullivan @SenatorSessions @SenShelby @JohnBoozman @SenTomCotton @JeffFlake @SenJohnMcCain @SenatorBoxer @SenFeinstein @SenBennetCO @sencorygardner @SenBlumenthal @ChrisMurphyCT @SenatorCarper @SenCoonsOffice @SenBillNelson @SenRubioPress @SenatorIsakson @sendavidperdue @maziehirono @SenBrianSchatz @senjoniernst @ChuckGrassley @MikeCrapo @SenatorRisch @SenatorDurbin @SenatorKirk @SenDanCoats @SenDonnelly @JerryMoran @SenPatRoberts @McConnellPress @RandPaul @BillCassidy @DavidVitter @SenMarkey @SenWarren @SenatorCardin @SenatorBarb @SenatorCollins @SenAngusKing @SenGaryPeters @SenStabenow @alfranken @amyklobuchar @RoyBlunt @McCaskillOffice @SenThadCochran @SenatorWicker @stevedaines @SenatorTester @SenatorBurr @senthomtillis @SenatorHeitkamp @SenJohnHoeven @SenatorFischer @SenSasse @KellyAyotte @SenatorShaheen @CoryBooker @SenatorMenendez @MartinHeinrich @SenatorTomUdall @SenDeanHeller @SenatorReid @sengillibrand @ChuckSchumer @SenSherrodBrown @robportman @InhofePress @SenatorLankford @SenJeffMerkley @RonWyden @SenBobCasey @SenToomey @SenJackReed @SenWhitehouse @GrahamBlog @SenatorTimScott @SenatorRounds @SenJohnThune @SenAlexander @SenBobCorker @JohnCornyn @SenTedCruz @SenOrrinHatch @SenMikeLee @SenKaineOffice @MarkWarner @SenatorLeahy @SenSanders @SenatorCantwell @PattyMurray @SenatorBaldwin @SenRonJohnson @Sen_JoeManchin @SenJohnBarrasso @SenCapito @SenatorEnzi

Here are suggested tweets to send to all senators, especially the ones singled out above the list of 100, and your own:

Vote YES on S.1881 to #DefundPP. They change procedures (to partial birth), & sell parts. https://t.co/RY2fptgiM0

When “extremists” do the extreme, we expect “moderates” to speak up, NOT defend it. Where’re the @PPact moderates? #DefundPP

There are better ways to do research: https://t.co/ZVYbrePKAa #DefundPP Yes on S.1881

S.1881 would not reduce access to affordable healthcare, would redirect the funds away from @PPact #DefundPP & vote YES!

The Susan B. Anthony List has good templates you can use to call or email your senators. Check out the left-hand sidebar.

For Facebook: Tag all the senators you want to tag, with this message:

Vote yes on S.1881 to defund Planned Parenthood. They admit to committing these federal offenses in the undercover videos…whether or not the videos were legally filmed:

• they know they are doing the abortion for the purpose of organ donation
• they change procedures to make organ procurement possible
• they use the partial birth procedure
• they profit from selling the organs, as they charge for something that costs them nothing–the woman already paid for it

Posted in Abortion, Ethics & Metaethics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Premeditated organ harvesting via partial birth abortion & what you can do to stop it.

UPDATE 7/21: Second Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Caught On Undercover Video. Dr. Mary Gatter, President of the Planned Parenthood Medical Directors’ Council, who now oversees the Pasadena affiliate (sold to Novogenix through the Los Angeles affiliate before that), haggles over the price, admits “Ian” will change the procedure so it is less “crunchy” — so as to produce an in tact (alive) “specimen”. On to the original post…but how many other undercover videos are there left to release?

Update 8/3: Obviously, there have been more vids. Watch all of them. Contact your senators and urge them to defund Planned Parenthood.

***

I teach my boys (age 14 and 17) Christian apologetics, especially during summer break. Yesterday we read Tim Keller’s chapter from The Reason for God on knowing God exists through knowing right and wrong, and today we started Douglas Groothuis’ chapter from Christian Apologetics on the moral argument, which was written before the Supreme Court ruling on marriage, referred to Nazi experimentation on children (segued into current event of Planned Parenthood harvesting baby organs using partial birth abortion), and obliterated the idea that cultures create rights. We watched the first undercover video that caught the Senior Director of Medical Services of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, admitting three ways Planned Parenthood and affiliates she oversees are violating the law as a matter of policy–the “reasonable people” among them, anyway:

 

1. Premeditation in performing abortions for the purpose of harvesting organs, seen in their “huddles” that determine which procedures they will use on each “case” that day, depending on what organs have been ordered, and what can most-likely be harvested from each “case”. Federal law prohibits abortions performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the procedure to be changed in order to collect tissue. See Public Law 103-43; 6-10-93, NIOH Revitalization Act Of 1993, Title I – Gen Provisions RE: Title IV Of Public Health Service Act, Pt G, Sec. 498A.
11759423_671489502984267_1496413569_n2. They change their abortion procedures to make it possible to harvest certain organs (see 1). See Public Law 103-43; 6-10-93, NIOH Revitalization Act Of 1993, Title I – Gen Provisions RE: Title IV Of Public Health Service Act, Pt G, Sec. 498A. The really frustrating thing is they get the mother’s consent *after* the abortion is complete, so *on paper* it looks legal
11748827_671489499650934_1956589060_n-13. They use partial birth abortion to harvest the head in tact. Partial birth abortions are banned–that “breech” procedure the doctor references. This is a federal felony punishable up to 2 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $250,000. (18 U.S. Code 1531). The crushing she refers to is how abortion doctors kill the baby. So if they are avoiding crushing vital organs, they are basically dealing with a born-alive infant, and any further action taken to kill him or her is homicide (1 U.S. Code 8). Future generations will look back on our partial birth abortion ban as an idiotic delusion (I pray)…thinking that abortion is murder outside the womb, but totally fine inside the womb. But who is going to go into abortion clinics and make sure the babies are murdered INSIDE rather than OUTSIDE, much less make sure they aren’t just being harvested for their organs? How can this even be stopped? The partial birth abortion ban is also an idiotic delusion because NO ONE ENFORCES IT.

My sons and I talked about the delusion of the partial birth abortion ban (still murder before baby changes location, and not enforced) and had a long discussion about what determines a person’s worth. Painfully good discussion that needed to happen, aided by Defenders classes we’d been watching on divine omniscience and foreknowledge. Would you (should God) kill Hitler as a baby? Apparently it’s been on Ethan’s mind, and ties all of this together. Grace and love being a free choice was at the center of the answer.

Continue reading

Posted in Abortion, Ethics & Metaethics | Leave a comment

The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas

indexThe CAA read The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas: Paul’s Mars Hill Experience for Our Pluralistic World by Paul Copan and Kenneth D. Litwak, as part of Apologetics 315’s weekly Read Along program. This took place August through October. Each week, an audio introduction from Paul Copan was provided for that week’s chapter, along with a brief synopsis and study questions. We were also able to connect with other readers in the comments on Apologetics 315, or on the Christian Apologetics Alliance Facebook page/group.

After having given it some time to blend flavors, I am now prepared to give my thoughts on the book. These were my initial thoughts before starting the Read Along. Note that this review does not go through the book by walking through it from beginning to end, due to its reuse of or expansion on the same material at different parts of the text, rather than keeping similar topics together. We will let the reader decide if that is a format they prefer to read. For me, it felt kind of scattered.

Read Along Index: The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas

Copan and Litwak begin with a nice sketch of our current cultural landscape as being multicultural, relativistic, secularized, and post-Christian. They define a worldview as a philosophy of life that reflects a deeper heart commitment and answers questions like Why am I here? Why does anything exist at all? What am I to do or think? How can my life have any meaning? Later they define worldview as “an articulation of the basic beliefs embedded in a shared grand story that are rooted in a faith commitment and that give shape and direction to the whole of our individual and corporate lives.” They lay out the problem: Most people today, even those calling themselves Christians, only know a caricature of Christianity, so that if ever they come into conversation with a knowledgeable Christian, a lot of what the Christian communicates is filtered through a faulty worldview and so is lost in translation. The first hurdle to overcome is to make sure we know what their worldview is, including their view of Christianity, so that we speak their language and nothing is lost in translation. We are the ones with a message to deliver, and so we are the ones who need to learn how to speak their language—not the other way around. Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Reviews and Interviews, The Gospel | 2 Comments

Discussing with my sons the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage

We just had a really great discussion (Ethan is 17, David 14) on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. I started writing on this topic mid-May, but it was just never in a shareable condition until after this discussion with my sons. I hope it will help you as you talk to your kids (and even your friends and co-workers, should the topic ever come up). We started out with a review of easy arguments (from their “toolbox“) that reach these conclusions:

Contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Moral truth (like human rights) cannot be made up, but has to be true to God’s goodness.

There can be no evil (like human rights violations–the charge of those who support the Supreme Court ruling) if there is no being (God) that grounds moral truth.

We then talked about how, before the ruling, same sex couples were not forced to violate their beliefs, but after the ruling, Christians will be punished by the law unless they violate their beliefs. David said it reminded him of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The boys both asked questions and contributed their own thoughts throughout the discussion, but what follows are the basics on which we agree.

I explained why I oppose homosexuality in general:

Continue reading

Posted in Golden Rule, Homosexuality | Leave a comment

Ethics & Morality

Pontius Pilate's "What is Truth?" - stylized inscription at entrance to Antoni Gaudi's Sagrada Família (Barcelona).

Pontius Pilate’s “What is Truth?” – stylized inscription at entrance to Antoni Gaudi’s Sagrada Família (Barcelona).

Below is a collection of my thinking on the grounding and justification of moral truth. I am warming up for something.

Divine Essentialism

God wills it (right) because He is good — essentialism. 1/4/08 (Not mine. Precursor.)

The Sword and the Sacrifice Philosophy (c. 2008) (In progress.)

Are you an essentialist or a voluntarist? 5/26/09

Poll: What grounds objective moral truth? 12/31/12

The Euthyphro Dilemma

Good 101: Is there a solution to the Euthyphro dilemma? 12/24/09 Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Gettier Problem, Golden Rule, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief, Keller's Reason for God, Moral Argument, Natural Law and Divine Command, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, William Lane Craig | 3 Comments

6 blogposts you won’t find on Ichthus77

CAA_BannerSometimes I do stuff somewhere else. Here are 6 of those times, over at The Christian Apologetics Alliance:

Does The Moral Argument Reify Subjective Morality? 10/7/14

Matthew Lawrence wrote in this question and gave permission to blog it and my answer below:

Hello Christian Apologetics Alliance. I would like to first off say thank you for the resources that you’ve given to me. This has helped me boost my faith up greatly. (cont. at link above)

Initial Thoughts: Copan & Litwak’s “The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas” 8/12/14

The CAA is participating in Apologetics 315’s weekly Read Along program. We are reading “The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas: Paul’s Mars Hill Experience for Our Pluralistic World” by Paul Copan and Kenneth D. Litwak. (cont. at link above)

Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Moral Argument, Poetry, Poetry and Fiction, Problem of Evil & Hell, Youth Apologetics | Leave a comment

Reliability of the Gospels (Lecture Series) | Tim McGrew

McGrewTim McGrew from the Library of Historical Apologetics has a famous series that I wanted to make available on my blog. Dr. McGrew is Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University, where he has taught since 1995. His areas of specialization include Epistemology, History and Philosophy of Science, Probability Theory, Formal Logic, and Philosophy of Religion. His work in apologetics focuses on the Gospels, miracles, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the history of apologetics. You can make a full Friday and Saturday morning of the following lecture series. In fact, I have suggested a schedule, for fun. Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Undesigned Coincidences | Leave a comment

Kindling Conversations with Modesto Neighbors

kindling conversationsYou want to love your neighbor as yourself, but it’s hard to get to know them in the space between when the garage door opens and closes. No one answers the door anymore, because the only ones knocking are trying to sell you on something. What do you do? Hang out on the front lawn, or take your dog for a walk in the park, and start talking to random stran…neighbors. Here are a few questions you can ask, depending on the circumstances. Base your follow-up questions on whatever answers you get back. Be mindful for your neighbor’s signals that they’re overloaded and need to go home and recharge.

The Questions

What do you love most about your dog? Did you rescue it from the pound or adopt it?

Doing anything new this weekend? Have you walked the Virginia Corridor Trailway?

Are you going to see the upcoming superhero movie? What would be your super power if you had one?

How long have you lived in the neighborhood? What do you like about it? Continue reading

Posted in Golden Rule, Neighboring | Leave a comment

Reply to WLC’s answer to my question regarding anti-realism (QoW #379)

I am saving my reply here, as it is already getting buried.

Dr. Craig, thank you for answering my question. I am glad you are a realist about the Good and concede *that* much to the realist. Do you actually mean the Platonist when you say you “see no reason to concede so much” to the realist (see links ‘a’ and ‘b’)?

a) https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/posts/10152300210348229
b) https://www.facebook.com/williamlanecraig/posts/10203920584525754

You see the importance of conceding the existence of the Good to the realists (not the Platonists, to be sure). So why take an anti-realist position? Why not take a divine essentialist, rather than a Platonic essentialist, position? I don’t think that is conceptualist, because I see it as describing his nature–the Logos wills/thinks in accordance with his nature. I am curious how you base the Good in God in a non-conceptualist way, but think it would concede too much to base other seemingly abstract objects in God?–I say seemingly abstract, because they aren’t so abstract if they are grounded in God, are they? Btw, I’m not so sure Plato didn’t consider the Good to correspond to real Being, but that’s a slightly more involved discussion: http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/2012/10/16/resolving-euthyphros-dilemma

What I know of realism/anti-realism I learned from Christopher Norris’ “Epistemology”. It is interesting to note that Dummett: “denies the existence of objective, recognition-transcendent truth-values for statements of the so-called ‘disputed class’, i.e., those for which we possess no means of ascertainment or decisive proof”—including “standards of objective moral good or natural justice” (from Norris’ concluding postscript I). That’s why Norris is a convergent, or critical, realist — though, I think his morality lacks ontology (only in his mind, of course), considering he leaves no room for God in reality. The theist, however, grounds the Good in God, so…why not the rest of the “disputed class” (even to the same extent, where you do not consider essential certain extrapolations, only the basic core underlying all the extrapolations–like the Golden Rule, for example…the sum of the Law and the Prophets Jesus came to fulfill on the cross)? — how is the Good different from the rest of it, so that you would allow for its reality, but be anti-realist about the rest? Would Dummett agree with you that you have means of ascertainment or decisive proof for the Good? Do you think ontology is more decisive than justification when it comes to knowledge? I think both are needed (I agree with Plato, but not with Platonism).

No worries if you have no time to answer. Thank you for the answer you were able to provide. I am truly honored.

Posted in Norris' Epistemology, Reviews and Interviews, William Lane Craig | Leave a comment

Positive Modesto News

10502074_779965998720980_6272097615267583232_nCheck out the new Facebook page just created to shed light on all the  good stuff going on all around us in this city we love. It’s called Positive Modesto News, and it will feature relevant articles I publish on Examiner.com, as well as positive blog/news articles from other like-minded authors. If you’re one of those, contact me with your work and I will gratefully promote it!

Posted in News | Leave a comment