Classroom advocacy

 I have often noted the disparity between the way in which religious advocacy in the classroom is treated and the way anti-religious advocacy is treated. It is as if they think that you can't violate the Establishment Clause if you attack religion in class, because atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a religion. So we can shove atheism down your throat all you want to, but if you advocate your religious views in class, there is an issue with the Establishment Clause. You ought at least to have the right to say in class "I'm a believer, here's why" or "I am an unbeliever, here's why." But your first job is to be fair in presenting the case on both sides. I've had atheist professors who were good at doing that. Others, not so much. One of my former teachers in grad school notice a cross on the blackboard. He then put his head down on the desk and said "I won't start class until somebody erases that."

A libertarian defense of abortion and infanticide

 Here. 

Yep, infanticide has its defenders.

AI on whether abortion is cheaper

Of course you also have the argument that capital punishment is cheaper.  

While the costs of abortion and childbirth vary, some argue that the long-term costs to the state of raising a child are greater than the costs of providing abortion care, potentially leading to a situation where abortion is cheaper for the state than live birth. [1, 2, 3]

Here's a more detailed look at the arguments and considerations:

Arguments for Abortion Being Cheaper: [1, 3]

• Long-Term Costs of Raising a Child: The costs associated with raising a child, including education, healthcare, housing, and social services, are significantly higher than the costs of an abortion procedure. [1, 3]
• Medicaid Costs: In states where Medicaid covers abortion, the cost of the procedure is often lower than the cost of providing prenatal care, childbirth, and postpartum care for a live birth. [3, 4]
• Reduced Strain on Social Services: By choosing abortion, individuals may avoid the potential strain on social services that can arise from raising a child, such as childcare, welfare, and education programs. [3]

Arguments Against Abortion Being Cheaper: [5, 6, 7]

• Abortion Costs Vary: The cost of an abortion can vary greatly depending on the type of procedure, the stage of pregnancy, and the location of the provider. [5, 6, 7]
• Post-Abortion Care: There can be costs associated with post-abortion care, such as medication, follow-up appointments, and potential complications. [8]
• Ethical Considerations: Some people have strong moral or religious beliefs that abortion is never justifiable, regardless of the costs. [1]
• Mental Health Concerns: Some studies suggest that women who have abortions may experience increased risks of mental health problems, which could lead to increased healthcare costs. [9]

Other Factors to Consider: [4, 10]

• State-Specific Laws and Regulations: Abortion laws and regulations vary by state, which can impact the cost and accessibility of abortion care. [4, 10]
• Insurance Coverage: Some health insurance plans may not cover abortion services, which can lead to higher out-of-pocket costs. [4, 11]
• Access to Abortion Care: In some areas, access to abortion care is limited, which can increase the cost and difficulty of obtaining an abortion. [12]
• The Hyde Amendment: The Hyde Amendment, which restricts the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion, can lead to higher costs for individuals seeking abortion care. [4, 13]
• Abortion Funds: Organizations like the National Network of Abortion Funds help cover the costs of abortion for those who cannot afford it. [5, 12]

Generative AI is experimental.

[1] https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/the-world-today/2022-06/counting-cost-abortion-ban

[2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/a-birth-more-expensive-than-abortion-co-dems-argue-fiscal-virtues-liberal-health-care-bill

[3] https://www.aol.com/birth-more-expensive-abortion-co-195617817.html

[4] https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services-under-medicaid-in-the-post-roe-era/

[5] https://abortionfunds.org/need-an-abortion/

[6] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/how-do-i-get-an-in-clinic-abortion

[7] https://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2024/11/abortion-cost-much/

[8] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7865195/

[9] https://news.yahoo.com/birth-more-expensive-abortion-co-195617817.html

[10] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/does-medicare-cover-abortions

[11] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill/how-much-does-abortion-pill-cost

[12] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/us/abortion-costs-funds.html

[13] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-enforces-overwhelmingly-popular-demand-to-stop-taxpayer-funding-of-abortion/

If materialism true, how is belief based on evidence possible?

 

The title of one of Richard Dawkins’s books is The Blind Watchmaker, but its subtitle is How the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a World without Design.¹ The subtitle, it seems to me, makes a paradoxical claim. On the one hand, it maintains we ought to draw the conclusion that the world lacks design. On the other hand, the subtitle suggests that he has reached this conclusion through examining the evidence of evolution, but examining the evidence is a process designed to discover the truth. In fact, Dawkins is fond of contrasting his own methods for reaching conclusions with methods based on faith, which to his mind involve a lack of design. He put it this way in an open letter to his ten-year-old daughter:

Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?’ And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.²

 Dawkins appeals to a fact of experience, one that cannot be denied without extreme implausibility. There are some claims that can be justified only if there is evidence for it, and we form our beliefs concerning them based on the evidence. If we want to know whether or not the Loch Ness Monster exists, we have to look at the evidence for or against it. Someone could have a strong feeling about it, but that wouldn’t be a reason to believe that the monster exists, or that it does not exist. But if the world really is without design, how is this possible that anyone can reason to a conclusion? Of course, it could turn out that the paradox is resolvable. Still, if the world is not teleological, those who think they believe anything for a good reason owe us an explanation as to how that is even possible.

Craig on the argument from intentionality

 Here. 

Respect for persons and cultural relativism

 Belief in respect for persons means that culture does not determine morality, because in many cultures, including our own during the days of black slavery, we approved of practices that did not accord with respect for persons. Segregation would be another example.

A Christian Defense of Transgender Identities

 Here. Though I think most transgendering these days is the result of gender ideology and trigger-happy medical professionals who think all cases of gender dysphoria require a change of gender. I think medical science will get over this fad. 

How a skeptical philosopher becomes a Christian.

Here.  

The causal exclusion problem in philosophy of mind

 Here. 

Tbe heart of most replies to the argument from reason is that a mental event can have both a mental and a physical cause. There are problems with that idea.