Badmovies.org Forum

Komen VP steps down after Planned Parenthood flap 

http://news.yahoo.com/komen-advisor-steps-down-planned-parenthood-flap-155038649.html (http://news.yahoo.com/komen-advisor-steps-down-planned-parenthood-flap-155038649.html)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior executive of the breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure has resigned after a public outcry over the group's decision to cut funding to women's health organization Planned Parenthood.

Karen Handel, a Republican who once ran for governor of Georgia on a platform calling for defunding of Planned Parenthood, stepped down from her role as the top U.S. breast cancer charity's senior vice president for public policy and chief lobbyist, the organization said on Tuesday.

"I have known Karen for many years, and we both share a common commitment to our organization's lifelong mission, which must always remain our sole focus," Komen founder Nancy Brinker said in a statement. "I wish her the best in future endeavors."

Komen's move last week caused an uproar among supporters who also back Planned Parenthood, a provider of birth control, abortion and other health services. Komen reversed the decision on Friday... 

http://news.yahoo.com/komen-advisor-steps-down-planned-parenthood-flap-155038649.html (http://news.yahoo.com/komen-advisor-steps-down-planned-parenthood-flap-155038649.html)

As I do not support abortion I am disappointed that Komen backed down.

My emotions about abortion are very, very strong.
You can wrap it in the flowery language of choice all day long, but in the end, you are still cutting up an unborn child and sucking it down a sink.  There is no way that is a moral act.  EVER!
Komen is about saving lives, Planned Parenthood is about ending them.

I am disgusted that they caved to the abortion lobby.

That may sound good to you, but that's not what happened.  The woman who resigned said herself that this was not about "abortion politics".  Planned Parenthood is not about "ending" lives.  I don't believe abortion is right either, but I do believe in medical care for the underclass. 

While I am not in strict agreement with either of you, to say that Planned Parenthood is about "ending lives" is a little bit like looking back at the 1950's and saying that the American South was all about "Jim Crow Laws." Your observation, Indy, is just another indication of how polarized we have become.

I am in total agreement that abortion is to be avoided, but to say that Planned Parenthood is an organization dedicated to encouraging abortion is naive.

It is important to understand that, while there is some real estate in the notion that the left has capitalized on the vaguaries of the law, the fact remains that the law is the law. I'm sorry to report this, but the law has never recognized life before delivery. The law is based on an view of life before science was able to see beyond live birth. Unless that is changed, I'm afraid that's just the way it is.

I don't know that there is any direct evidence that the religious justifications for being pro-life had much of an existence before this. 100 years ago, life just began at live birth and that was something that people simply accepted, at least from a legal perspective. Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that it is medical science that has revealed to us that an individual life begins at conception, not religion or philosophy. I would be genuinely curious to go back in time 100 years and ask philosophers and clergy when life begins and see what the answers would be. I feel strongly that you would have a vast array of answers, no polarized left vs. right assertion of an absolute. It is medical science that has given us the absolute that we needed, and now it is up to people to decide if the law should adjust or not.

But don't labor under the idea that the left are trying to impose a certain set of laws upon us. The laws are already there, and they recognize life at the time of live birth, end of story. They are simply taking advantage of that fact. And so the conservative-minded right, who by their very nature are resistant to changing the law, are faced with having to do exactly that in order to make any real difference in their fight. The law is, and has always been even before "pro-choice" advocacy had a face, on their side.

The so-called "pro-choice vs. pro-life" debate is one of the most ironic I've ever seen.

Life begins at conception because if it didn't then life would never come of it. Abortion is murder,just as if the victim was an adult. Planned Parenthood is about birth prevention, be it abortion or birth control.

    Exactly. I don't understand how anyone can claim that an unborn child is not alive, or not human; what is it, then?

     The pro-death view is driven by people, primarily women, who don't want to be accountable for their actions, and want the freedom to gap their thighs whenever, with whoever. I know some will disagree, but this is a horrifying circumstance.

     PP was founded by Margaret Sanger, primarily to support her racist views on eugenics-she said that minorities were "human weeds, that needed to be cut", and to deny this ignores history. Talking about the other services they provide is like extolling the virtues of the Third Reich because they gave the world the Autobahn and Interpol.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wbHPmMUzmy0/TpjWxqm8VvI/AAAAAAAABXI/WPfoktQpk78/s1600/HIST+margaret+sanger-thumb.jpg)

(http://static.bbc.co.uk/history/img/ic/640/images/resources/people/adolf_hitler.jpg)

Oh boy. I had a feeling this thread had accelerated Godwin's Law potential.

I was trying to steer clear of inflammatory content. I think I have done that.  

If we got into a conversation about where life begins, Indy, alandhopewell, tracy, I know that we would have a common belief. However, abortion is not murder according to the law.

Murder is the unlawful killing with malice aforethought of another human being. This is the legal definition. Despite how much we may want abortion to be considered murder, it is not, no matter how much we may want it to be so. This is not my fault, nor anybody's fault that is currently among the living. The law as it recognizes life has been in place long before any of use were born. I've said it before but I guess I'll have to reiterate it. The law does not recognize life before live birth. I believe it should, but as it stands, it does not. That fact alone eliminates abortion from the classification of murder. Add to that that there is no way to establish malice as it is defined by, again, laws that have been in place for a very, very long time.

My advice to anybody endeavoring to debate against a pro-choice, pro-death, or pro-whatever you prefer to call it, stance is to check your use of language before doing so. Calling abortion murder is about as accurate as the equally inflammatory and ridiculous phrase "meat is murder." In neither case is the entity killed considered human under the law, nor is there any form of reasonable malice, except by stretching the term to it's breaking point. Calling abortion murder does nothing save preach to the choir and give the opposition strength and the easy target to say "um, no it's not, and here's why."

Now, believe it or not, I am more on your side than you may realize, if not for the same rationale or religious motivations. But I have to tell you, in respect for what you are trying to accomplish, the cheap inflammatory theatrics used are a detriment, not a benefit.

     RICK: I appreciate what you're saying, and recognize that we share some of the same views. However, there is the fact (for us) that

     PRIMUS- We give alleigance to a higher Authority than man's law, and

     SECUNDUS- The issue (again, for us) is  not so much changing minds as it is speaking truth.

     The Scriptures define murder as the shedding of innocent blood; who could be more innocent than the unborn?

      Man's law does not trump God's commandments. Someday, all will acknowledge this.

Flick, I took alanhopewell's comment not to speak to the murder debate or abortion being right, etc, but rather whether or not PP has a commitment to abortion.

His quote does a lot to support that they do, if they still hold the belief's of their founder.  Before moving to the more contemporary, let's take a look at some more Sanger quotes (just for fun).



THAT sounds like murder.  Maybe the organization does not support this, but we DO have to be wary of how far we separate the founder from the underlying core philosophy of the organization.



That does not sound to me like the image of PP that the popular media tries to present.  Wow.



Hmmmm, innocent little organization who just wants to help the unfortunate have access to healthcare?  Bullsqueeze.



Yes, the unfortunate really WAS her primary focus.  My mind is changed.  {That's sarcasm for the reading comprehension impaired}

Okay, so do these ideologies permeate the contemporary organization?



In more seriousness, how about falsifying records to get taxpayers to pay for non-covered abortion related services...altering charts and training employees how to get federal money for abortions (that are not covered by Medicaid).

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/07/planned-parenthood-continues-falsifying-medicaid-documents/

Think about this....why are MILLIONS of dollars needed by specific offices to cover non-covered services if that's not the primary service? (one NY judge ruled over 17 million dollars in illegal billing).  Or, put another way, could it not just be that the reason so many people believe that PP is doing other things is because they are falsifying their records to show that they are doing 'non-abortion' activities in the amount of millions per year.

In Kansas, records were destroyed during investigation.

Translation:  PP is selling the lie that they are about anything other than population control via abortion.  Their founder was a hard-core racist and they engage in systematic illegal activities to cover this up.

But hey, so long as they can continue to sell the lie, that people buy it, they will keep going under the umbrella guise of "doing the right thing for the less fortunate."  If you believe that, keep telling yourself that it's true; the lies we tell ourselves are the easiest to believe.

Not one word of this post is about abortion being right, being murder or not, whether it should be legal or illegal.  I am simply addressing the motivations and integrity of Planned Parenthood.  I will not respond to any post trying to argue my points on any other topic.  In other words, if a rebuttal does not offer verifiable proof of Planned Parenthood's uprightness and dedication to the "less fortunate" that contradicts what I've posted, I will ignore it.

I'm not interested in an 'abortion debate,' but I will debate the truthfulness and integrity of Planned Parenthood as an organization.

Thanks for playing...

ulthar,

I'm not an advocate of Planned Parenthood. However, some of your quotes attributed to Sanger seem a little misconstrued.


Yes, that IS an aim of birth control, and a damned good one. More children born to fit parents and less children born to unfit parents is a difficult thing to see as negative. This would almost make it seem as if the pro-life advocates favor as many children born to unfit parents as possible.


While it SOUNDS like murder, I would be curious what her context was. If it in reference to killing an unborn child, then it is definitely NOT murder, for the same reasons I've brought up twice. Again, I am trying to strengthen the cause of the pro-life advocacy with a little tough love.


Yes, that is a terrible-looking quote to be sure. Just goes to show that eugenics was an ideal held by many people at that time, some of them American. It took the rise of fascist governments soon after that time to give it a monstrous face. Flash forward to today, when eugenics has been largely removed from American society (and yes this practice has been used in the U.S. before the time of Sanger), and we see the rapid rise in rates of the very things that eugenics seeks to reduce in society, and the accompanying burden on the taxpayer. By saying this I am not advocating a eugenics program, but I am saying that birth control is a light form of eugenics, and I have no doubt that eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries accompanied it. Abortion is but one of many forms of birth control. Are you opposed to birth control outright, or only abortion used as a form of birth control? I ask because all of these quotes talk about birth control, not abortion specifically. And to be honest some of the justifications used for it are not entirely unsound. For the record, I AM opposed to abortion used as a form of birth control, but I am not opposed to the use of birth control as a whole. Again, more babies to the fit and less babies to the unfit doesn't sound very sinister to me. How exactly is that a bad thing?


Again, if one wants to paint me as a PP advocate, that's their choice, but they would be mistaken. When I see inflammatory commentary I tend to react. In some cases, as in this one, it is because I hate to see such cheap theatrics applied to something I happen to care about. In other words, playing Devil's Advocate is often the best way to strengthen a movement. Likewise, by pointing out flaws in logic it helps the pro-life movement develop their approach, which, in my opinion, has been horribly inept thus far.

Fair enough. I'm not going to get into a religious debate with you unless you truly want to. You are a Christian and I am not. We will never see eye to eye. However, as a former Christian I may understand more about your position than you realize. If your agenda is to speak the truth above all, this must mean that you never lie. And therefore, if I am taking exception to anything you say, I must be telling lies. And because of this a debate is pointless.

However, I am a bit troubled by one thing. If you goal is to tell the truth and not to change minds, why even bother getting involved in the discussion? There must be somewhere in you a desire to sway, or else there is nothing you can do for the cause of pro-life other than to hinder it.

My point is that there is a perfectly rational and scientific basis for pro-life that does not rely on faith-based conviction in order to convey, whereas the Bible provides no basis, as the Bible does not in any way define when life begins, at least not that I have ever seen. We have no way of knowing, according to scripture, if a human has a soul and is therefore a life according to Christian belief at the moment of life or at the moment of conception or at any point in between. Because of this, there is no Biblical basis for when killing an unborn child would be the taking of an innocent life, and therefore murder. Science, on the other hand, has managed to determine that an individual human identity is established at the moment of conception.

Now, if your ultimate retort is that all of humanity will acknowledge God's Law in the end, then I will say that all of nature already acknowledges God's Law. We don't need the end of times to determine it. As a deist I am perfectly comfortable in my relationship with God and I don't need anything more than God's Natural Laws, which are around us every day. I am forever in awe and wonder of the laws of nature. Science has observed the already existing Laws of Nature that tell us when a human life starts. What more do we need? And it doesn't need a religious posture to observe these laws.

Take all of that as you will.

Okay, a bit of a mea culpa is in order here.  I was not directing any 'snideness' of my last message toward you are anyone, but rather to the unheard-from-as-yet would-be poster that might try to derail the discussion using my post as a springboard.  I can see this thread going down an ugly path, and I was merely saying that I want no part of THAT.

The other thing, to clarify, I was not saying that you are a PP advocate, but rather was extrapolating from AHD's statement:



Which seems to imply the notion that PP is about medical care for the underclass.   I certainly question that.  (AHD, for the record, I am disagreeing with the extrapolated inference of your statement that I think others do make; I cannot and will not assert that that was what YOU were saying).




Oooo, wow, a very pointed question.

The problem I see with "fit" and "unfit" here is the fundamental, core problem with eugenics in general - WHO gets to decide...who is the arbiter of "fitness?"

The Germans showed us one way that works as eugenics devolved into The Final Solution.  And while that may be only one test of eugenics in practice, I'm personally not willing to try another.  I just see too much evil in the hearts of too many people to believe that anything good can come of this.

So, to answer your question, I have no problem with birth control - as an INDIVIDUAL decision.  But, this is NOT what Sanger was talking about or believed if we take her "humans I don't approve of are weeds" ideology to heart.

No, sir.  I don't buy for one New York Minute that she had any less innocent motivation than where the Nazi's ended up.

Yes, we have HUGE gray areas with this...but it comes down to a very basic, fundamental, core defining ideal to me.  I am not the arbiter of life and death of innocent people, no matter how flawed they are or APPEAR to me.  That goes against everything I have EVER stood for, and I've put my life on the line to back it up on more than one occasion.



I disagree with this.  I think it's still there.  Obama-Care has some language that is frighteningly similar to the early language of the German program in the 1930's.  No, I'm not saying Obama-Care says "we must kill the unfit," but there *IS* a beginnings of what can only be termed a eugenics program there, with the arbiter of human life making that decision based on MONEY.

I find this notion offensive.

Whether that arbiter is the government or insurance companies or whoever...that's a dangerous, dangerous thing.

I'm reminded of GATTACA at this point, for some reason, and the PBS show I saw years ago titled "Frozen Angels."



These are two separate arguments and have roots more in the decline of moral behavior than from the lack of eugenics.  But, aside from that, I cannot accept an external agent as arbiter of who gets to live or die or who gets to reproduce.  We can bat around the gray, shady areas if you want to, but I'm afraid nothing will change my mind that this outside agent has this "right."




Perhaps, but again, it's the WHO that is the distinction to my mind.  There's a canyon of difference between an external agent forcing (by law, physical force or mutilation of bodies) and the individuals involved making that choice themselves.

Look, I'm talking about CHOICE!  Haha.

I see a very sinister underbelly with this whole idea.  I can easily separate eugenics from birth control, because birth control has existed for millenia and did so without the added evil of eugenics in many instances.



Not really...Sanger was more than a casual advocate of eugenics (and a very staunch racist to boot), and all these quotes about birth control were a means to an end.  Planned Parenthood is her baby, and her legacy to the world is an organization that purports to be one thing, when it something else entirely.  The claim that they seek only to provide medical care for underprivileged women is easily falsified, and the claim that they seek to perform abortions

PRIMARILY OF THE POOR AT TAXPAYER'S EXPENSE

is easily supported.

Finally, here's a very interesting read from uic.edu (http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/13_2%20Birth%20Control%20in%20Antiquity.htm), and I quote only one part,

An interesting discussion, and many valid points being raised therein.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the nation.  Whatever other services they offer, abortion is one of the most prevalent ones.  I would never support them for that reason alone, as my contempt for abortion is boundless.  Abraham Lincoln once said, "If slavery is not evil, then nothing is evil."  I feel that way about abortion.

However, contraception I believe to be another matter entirely.  I support it, I have no moral qualms about it, and I have practiced it throughout my marriage of nearly 30 years.

I think there are many interesting Scriptural references that can be fairly well interpreted to show that life begins in the womb, not outside it.  However, I do agree with Flick that science itself, by letting us see into the womb more clearly than ever before, has actually bolstered the pro-life argument.

The last point I would make is that while abortion may not be murder in the eyes of the law, it is still the ending of a human life.  What else can you possibly call it?

The deepest flaw in Roe vs. Wade as a legal decision, to my way of thinking, is this:
The foremost natural right, enumerated in our Declaration of Independence and in the Fifth Amendment, and again in the Fourteenth, is the right to life.  The "right to privacy" is never once explicitly mentioned, only implied in the Fourth and Ninth amendments.  How on earth does an IMPLIED right manage to trump an ENUMERATED right?  That is simply bad interpretation and wilful ignoring of clear constitutional principles!

MARGARET SANGER is certainly a mixed bag, but I believe she denounced Nazi eugenics, and perhaps it's fair to suggest that her view on the overall subject of eugenics was naive and contemporaneous.  Her supposed racism is at least perplexing if not self-contradictory.  Abortion was not a topic that SANGER seems to have made much commentary on, except within the limits of self-induced abortions, which were too frequent, dangerous, and often deadly when she began her work in the early 20th century.  Primarily, SANGER was an advocate of women's liberation long before such a term was coined.  

There was no informed Feminist context in which SANGER may have informed or refined her views.  She is an original feminist.

Only within one narrow definition of 'feminism,' that subset that defines a battle line between women and men rather than seeking fair common ground.

Some of her comments on marriage and motherhood are preposterous even outside of religious interpretations of marriage.  She's certainly no role model for my daughter.

I wouldn't disagree with much of what you say, but it's prejudicial.  Your failure to see that is perhaps your shortcoming.  I won't be her apologist.  Yet, I see the core context and/or subtext of SANGER's work which evolved out of a genuine concern for the feminine working class.  It's dated, sure, but no less pertinent.  PLANNED PARENTHOOD is about choosing a child instead of getting knocked up.  All other arguments are theoretical. 

Not really.  It's not prejudice to draw conclusions from the evidence before me.  I did not imagine a single thing about the founder of PP until I researched what she said, wrote and purported to believe.

She was, in my opinion, the worst sort of political monster....because her ideas are very dangerous and damaging yet she has convinced she is worth following or believing.  She's an ideological snake-oil salesman and there has been a body of research  concluding that her brand of 'feminism' has resulted in part in the destruction of many lives in the lower class.



I'm sorry, I don't understand this statement as written.  But, if you believe that PP is about planning parenthood, I respectfully submit that they have pulled the wool over your eyes.

And, it's not theoretical to the millions of lives they've actively taken a part in ending.  It's not theoretical that they are committing fraud against the US government and the tax payers of this nation.  It's not theoretical that they are manipulating the minds of young women in America and I know from someone who also counsels pregnant teens that PP does NOT give "the full story."

They have an agenda...I believe that agenda has nothing to do with helping the poor girl sitting there in tears over her situations.  Rather, I think it has EVERYTHING to do with the eradication of weeds.

Prove me wrong.  Show me evidence that everything I've accused them of is incorrect.  Show me the life affirming love Sanger showed others; show me statistics regarding PP does NOT recommend abortion at a higher incident of other "options." (http://liveaction.org/blog/pps-new-abortion-numbers-going-nowhere-but-up/) Show me the case disposition of all those fraud investigations and suits where they were adjudicated not-guilty, those same cases that render this graph (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html) completely meaningless.

Shut me up with data, not with attempting to point out my character flaws.

If you will not or cannot do any of that, you have no defense of PP's practices.

Your "character flaws"...?  Did I do that?  Because I don't see a battle line between women and men?  Sorry. 

I wasn't defending Planned Parenthood, but MARGARET SANGER, and only to an extent, for what that was worth.  Y'know... in an historical context. 
Cheese and crackers. 

Ooops, "shortcoming" not "character flaw."  BIG DIFFERENCE!   :bouncegiggle:

 :teddyr:

I like eggs.

     My point in saying that it was not our job to change minds is the same one that covers witnessing-we speak the truth, and the Holy Spirit works upon the heart. Of course, I would want the listener to heed what I have said, but the Scriptures tell us that this is the work of the Holy Spirit.

     Jeremiah 1:5,  Psalms 139, Job 10:18, and Judges 13: 1-7, among other passages, speak of life beginning at conception.

     To Sanger, "unfit" meant anyone who couldn't pass the Master Race Test, i.e. those of the wrong color, faith, physical or mental ability, age....should I go on?

      WADR, I find myself slightly offended by your referring to strongly held emotions about a topic as "cheap theatrics"-what, I might offend the monsters who salavate at the thought of 4000 children killed daily?

     They do exist....don't kid yourself.

     Yes, science recognizes life beginning at conception, but that truth was spoken thousands of years before the first test tube was ever blown, by men and women touched by the Holy Spirit, and equipped to spread God's Truth across a world hungering for it.

     I understand deism - used to be one- but that still, small voice finally penetrated my own internal rhetoric, and I came to a saving knowledge of Christ; I pray the same for you, as there is no one, certainly not someone whose ( cyber) company I enjoy, that I'd wish Hell upon.

Cheap theatrics refers to the combined images of Sanger and Hitler. Regardless of your profoundly held beliefs, it is still cheap theatrics. That in no way is a defense of Sanger, but an honest criticism of your methods. The quote in question was given by ulthar, and lacking context can be interpreted a number of ways. What doesn't surprise me is that if I plug that quote into google, it is difficult to find the surrounding context of the quote, leaving us to speculate it endlessly. In any case, I don't really care. The real context is that there was a widely held embrace of eugenics, in both mild and severe forms, held by people of that time, including many Americans like Alexander Graham Bell for example. The U.S. even engaged in eugenics programs, as did many countries. Fascism's embrace of eugenics gave the movement a monstrous face. Eugenics is a flawed concept to be sure, but the underlying motivation from the outset was not inherently evil. It became evil to society once the Nazis started doing it.

I appreciate that you care about my soul. I've said this to Indy before, it's impossible for me to hold any animosity toward your intentions. So, you are a former deist and I am a former Christian, and here our hearts tell us vastly different things about our Creator. I happen to feel I have a higher reverence for and opinion of God than any Christian, and I have no doubt you feel just the opposite.

Hmmm...I disagree with the latter phrase, but admit it's a matter of personal philosophy.

I've outlined my problem with eugenics as a concept before, even independent of the Nazis.  It is the elevation of Man As God or Science (itself) as God under the guise of Ontological Naturalism...sorry, but the very IDEA of eugenics has Ontological Naturalism written all over it.

From the dictionary.com definition, which I checked to make I was not misinterpreting, basically says "seeks to improve the human race."  It is that underlying philosophy, that core, foundational belief that (a) this is POSSIBLE and (b) that it should be done by (flawed) humans that gives me GREAT pause.

You say that it is a flawed concept but not inherently evil.  Man elevating himself to the realm of God, either directly or via an embrace of Ontological Naturalism (or other) is by MY definition, evil.  That elevation is incredibly destructive, and we need only look around us to contemporary culture to see evidence for that.

I contend that there has been two grand eugenics experiments from which we can draw meaningful conclusions.  One is the Final Solution and the other Planned Parenthood (as it exists today).  Neither of these represents, to me at least, anything less than the kind of evil that can live in the human heart exemplified.

It is any different from animal husbandry?

Boy, there's a thorny question, like we need more of that in this thread.




This is a genuine question, not a challenge or accusation, troll or flamebait.

Doesn't that statement contradict the very basis that you claim differentiates Deism from Christiananity?  You can reply off-board if you like, but I would really like to hear your thoughts on that question.  Again, not as a challenge.

Ah, you have raised some questions that certainly deserve consideration. I have problems with eugenics myself. My main one is that the motivation is not unsound, only that humans lack the ability to carry such a philosophy out without eventual corruption. The Nazis certainly taught us that.

Think for a moment, however, about the idea of strengthening the human race. This is something that humanity has done on a subconscious and even conscious level since as long as humanity has been around. The Spartans were one of the biggest examples of a society that endeavored to eliminate the weak from their numbers. Eugenics is simply an intellectual manifestation of this characteristic in human nature.

Eugenics has been demonized to the point that it is no longer sufficient in society's mind to simply count it as a flawed concept that, while it shouldn't be practiced by governments, still had some valid considerations, the most primary being the simple wish of a stronger society over a weaker one. I would argue that social engineering has endeavored to remove this wish from the human condition, but it cannot be done.

Instead of considering the strength of humanity at all, we have instead tried our hardest to go as hard in the opposite direction as possible. We insist that no parent, however unfit, should ever be questioned in their desire to have children, many of whom will be born into hopeless conditions. You say Eugenics is science playing God. Fair enough, but is it not also Science playing God to do everything in it's power to make sure that as many babies are born that would naturally not have made it? If so, in what way is it different?

I am not making any arguments in favor of eugenics. All I'm saying is that the rejection of eugenics, while the right thing to do, has been embraced to the point of throwing out the baby with the bath water (no pun intended). As an analogy, consider a person who engages in unethical means to get ahead in life. Just because the person chose a bad way to get ahead, this does not make wanting to get ahead or be competitive an evil thing.

Any by the way, this is no longer an argument about Planned Parenthood for me. PP is almost a tertiary component of the discussion for me now. Shame on me because the topic of the thread is all about it. It's all just part of my relentless tendency to deconstruct and separate issues. This often serves me well in life, but sometimes causes me trouble. It may be in this case.

The problem I see with this notion is, as stated before in a different way, the process by which the decisions are made.

One of the things that has made natural selection valuable to life is its randomness.  Things are tried; some work, some don't, some are colossal failures.

You could argue that human-induced eugenics is just an extension of that...but, well, waxing philosophic again, I find the "intent" to be governing in the nature of the outcome.

"Natural Selection" just happens, not because of greed or design intended for any specific, stated goal.  But that's NOT the case with eugenics.

I think I am dancing around the "Law of Unintended Consequences."


We are back to Sanger's ideology of fitness, I think.

My position is that it is not *I* who decides who is fit - either as a parent or as a child.

The origins of life itself are so steeped in mystery, and it's no wonder so many of us get a bit "religious" about it.  Science has yet to show it is anything but a miracle, and even if science does eventually explain the origin of "the life force," we still have the idea that God created the natural laws.

Given that, how can I question that one person is more fit than another?  Who am I to judge that one baby is 'better' for humanity long-term.

I could throw out Temple Grandin as example of a person who the Spartans would have slaughtered at birth or in early childhood, yet the purity of her motivations and how she has dedicated her life speaks, I believe, to the flaw in that argument. 

In other words, "unfit" as some may judge her to be, her life has been shown now to have had value.  Which weakens the human race more...to accept relatively low numbers of physical defects (some of which are merely the 'natural' process at work), or to quench the lives of those who may well enrich us?

The problem is...at conception or at birth, we just don't know what contributions any given individual or their offspring or progeny out 1,000 years might do.

Another problem is that we ALL have flaws.  Sanger has her definition of acceptable flaws, Hitler had his, the Spartans had theirs, you have yours and I have mine.  If we want to be truly "objective" about this, and really apply the concept to it's logical extreme, the human race and all life should be eliminated because it's ALL flawed in some measurable way.

It is the net combination of these arguments that leads me to be comfortable with putting the "who lives, who dies when" kinds of questions to a higher power.  Logically, there's no answer along the other paths, so long as one is willing to be brutally honest and accept that ALL of us could be/should be "selected out" for some reason or other.


I don't think it's a problem and I enjoy the discussion.  A thread like this one is bound to exhibit a certain degree of "creep," though I do believe that PP remains at least peripherally in view.

For example, by identifying the negative sides of eugenics, even non-government sponsored eugenics, we are by also pointing out the flaws in PP.  As you said, accomplishing "good" by improper means does not make the improper means proper.

As such, if we arrive at the conclusion that any systematic eugenics is bad, or at the very least dangerous, we simultaneously arrive at the conclusion that any good PP claims is corrupt.

....aren't you a scientist?  Shouldn't you know where the burden of proof lies?  You're the one making a claim here, and you appear to be making it based on your perceptions of its founder, not any actual experience or knowledge of the organization and what it does.

On another note, as far as what PP actually does, I feel a chart may be helpful.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/plannedparenthood.jpg?uuid=QJyyvGIBEeCV6ZMHpLzxXw)

Perhaps any of you may feel the abortion services alone make them horrible monsters (I can understand that), but it's a small percent of the work they do. 

I'm sure things like testing for STIs and preventing cancer are all about "eliminating weeds", right?

If it's such a small part of the agenda, and their other work is so noble, why not abandon abortion services altogether and focus on education and contraception exclusively?  I would be willing to donate to them under those circumstances!

And, while it may be a small part of what they do, they remain the largest provider of abortion services in the U.S.  Three percent of their budget is still a big old chunk of money devoted to exterminating human life in the womb.

That's because of the nature of the operation. Look, PP is PP and I've made my position on abortion already, but providing abortions does not invalidate the rest of what they do. Hospitals and primary physicians provide abortions too, but we don't hear anybody wanting to shut them down, do we? However, there are reasons why it is such a small percentage of what they do. One, they are not focused on sexually-oriented services, so that brings the number down significantly. Two, it's a simple matter of demographics. People with the financial means get them at hospitals and primary care providers, while people without go to PP. The abortions that happen outside of PP go largely unnoticed.

But, like I said, nobody is talking about shutting down hospitals or primary physicians, or considering them evil like they do PP. Part of this is because of their history and founder, sure, but I would say that arguably it is because they are an easy target because of the nature of their organization. It involves sex and that bothers churches.

If anybody took the time to research the history of eugenics, they would see that a lot of organizations, scientists, and doctors were involved and supportive of the idea pre-WWII, but because of the philosophical flaws that were realized, and because of the atrocities of the Nazis and the Japanese during that time, it came to a swift close. My point is, tieing PP in with eugenics and Hitler is just ridiculous and meaningless at this point, simply because Sanger and PP is just one example of many who embraced the idea at that time. It shouldn't even be a part of the debate. It's just sensationalism and theatrics.

It's better to stick with the issue on grounds that make sense. Indy mentioned why not just do away with that part of what they do? Indy brought something to the table to be considered, and at least went so far as to say that the organization would no longer be evil if they did that. That is a step forward in the debate in my opinion. However, like I said before, hospitals provide them too. If somebody asked you to donate to a hospital would you have the same moral dilemma? I think it's a fair question.

Wow.  You REALLY don't understand the scientific process and the concept of falsification.  Sorry to be so blunt, but I fear I'm going to lose my patience with this really quickly.

There is no "burden of proof" in science.  There is only data.

Fact 1:

I presented DATA, in the form of her OWN words, about the social viewpoints of the founder of Planned Parenthood.

Fact 2:

I presented additional DATA (which you apparently did not read since you said I did not present anything about the PP as it exists today) that challenges the popularly held belief that PP is about "more" than performing abortions.  That data is in the form of a MULTITUDE of federal investigations across many states into PP for fraudulent activities and more to the point, those fraudulent activities are the reporting of ABORTION RELATED SERVICES as non-abortion related services.

More on this in a minute, since it pertains to that chart you posted.

Part 3:

I challenged anyone to present contrary DATA that seeks to falsify the DATA I presented.  I very specifically asked for:

A. Quotations from Sanger showing that she affirms life or that very specifically clearly demonstrate a contrary view regarding eugenics than what I presented she ACTUALLY SAID.

No one, including you, has done that.  When that DATA is presented, we can then delve into what the contradictions mean.  Until then, my data remain unchallenged.

The only attempt to challenge this DATA is Flick's questioning the context of the comments and in some cases looking for that larger context.

B.  Contrary DATA to the fraud investigations that show that they have been adjudicated in PP's favor and thus their record keeping and reporting are accurate.

The point is, that until that happens, EVERYTHING they CLAIM about what they do that you and others sing their praises for must be taken as falsehood.

Or, a LIE.

The data strongly suggest that they do NOT provide all these other admirable services, because it's been ruled in court by at least one judge (and other investigations are under way) that these other admirable services were NOT rendered as presented.  They were abortion related services merely reported as the other categories so they could get reimbursement through Medicaid.

Which gets me back to:


Yes, I linked to that exact same chart earlier (did you read my posts?), and I have falsified it with the article regarding fraud.

Their recording / reporting of "other services" is a lie at least to some extent.  At least the Federal Government and one judge so far think so.  And, we don't know to what extent.  You claim that abortion is only a small percentage, but this fraud shows that it is at larger than you think it is, and may be quite a large percentage.

Now, back to my "challenge:" do you have DATA that falsifies my conclusions that (A) PP's founder was a racist eugenics advocate AND/OR (B) PP is sufficiently dedicated to the idea of abortion that they see fit to falsify federal documents to get reimbursements for the ABORTION services they perform?

Truth be told, I don't know how many hospitals perform abortions any more.  As the battle lines have become more and more firm, many of them just choose to avoid the controversy and negative publicity associated with the protests and forego offering the procedure.

Also, ultrasound technology lets us see further and clearer into the womb than ever before, and the abortionist position that the fetus is not a human life is becoming more and more indefensible.  For those and other reasons, as well as the improvement and increased availability of contraception, abortion and teen pregnancy are at an all time low since the 1970's.  And that's a good thing, no matter where your ideology lies!

We now return to your regularly scheduled brawling! :teddyr:

Nicely put, Indy. Thank you science.

 
Side stepping the abortion issue that has been blazing away, I have a friend who lives in the US and cannot afford proper private healthcare and because she's allergic to latex and has bad reactions from the pill, needs to go to PP for a birth control shot [whatever it's called].  If that service wasn't offered via PP she would be in a pretty tough spot, so at least there is value in services outside of abortion that they provide. 

I couldn't care less what the founder thought 70 years ago since the organisation is helping at least one person that I know in the present and to me that counts for at least something.

I couldn't care less either. I don't really know what all this talk of Sanger has to do with the argument. I'm not sure what is trying to be established, unless you're against birth control. It seems like the intent of Sanger-bashing is to suggest that she was an abortion supporter, when there is nothing I can find, and nothing from the quotes provided in this thread that suggest that she was. They all talk about birth control, which was the focus of her work. She was actually quite against abortions.

"while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."
     - from Women and the New Race

"[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way  no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
     - from her 1938 autobiography

"no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions."
     - from he book Family Limitation

Now, whatever one's feelings about her questionable racial views or her support of eugenics, this paints quite the opposite picture of her views on abortion that seem to be popular in deriding what PP does, because they did not take a dramatic turn in support of abortion until after her death.

I agree that her views on race and eugenics were questionable. We're talking about a time when most white Americans had questionable racial views, at least by today's standards. It's a little like calling Mark Twain a racist. We're talking about a time when many organizations, scientists, doctors, and even the U.S. government supported eugenics. Some states in the U.S. adopted sterilization legislation against certain individuals. Very dark indeed. But this was fairly prevalent thinking at the time. Alexander Graham Bell was an early advocate of eugenics. Do we consider his life's work evil because of it like we do about PP?

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see any relevance of all this rhetoric about Margarent Sanger and what it has to do with PP. An honest investigation of her life would seem to suggest that her goals were quite different than what the modern PP has become. So, again, I really don't understand how the thread went that direction.

It's a "acorn not far from the tree" analogy.

The connect, to my mind at least, is that until there is clear evidence to the contrary, I have to consider the possibility that PP has at it's core Sanger's racist eugenics philosophy.

Do I think that the people who presently work at PP - the day-to-day clinic workers, I mean,  have that viewpoint?  No, I do not.

But there are some systemic problems with PP that all point in the direction that the best you can say about it is that it's not what it appears to be.

There have been allegations, ones yet to be falsified by numerous federal investigations, that PP was corporately training employees to commit Medicaid fraud.  It's not that a few "independents" did this; the problem is that the organization pushed it.

The relevance of Sanger's personal philosophy on eugenics and her racial stance is VERY much at the heart of this issue to me, because PP's practices suggest that it is nothing better than a eugenics organization, and worse yet...one targeted at the poor.

And, it's a federally funded group.  They receive 1/4 or less of their budget from private donations.  3/4 of the funding, to the tune of nearly a half a billion dollars, from the federal government and VIA FRAUDULENT MEDICAID reporting to the tune of at least 10% of that.

You've got to connect the dots, here.  There may be dots missing in the puzzle, but the case can be made with the present dots that the present PP organization remains an extension of Sanger's eugenics ideology.

And Dean, sorry, but your friend does not have a right to receive free birth control on the backs of the American tax payer.  There's one form of birth control that is free to everyone - abstinence.  Unless and until she chooses to pay her own way, that's the responsible choice.

And, that just enhances my entire argument regarding a potential underlying ideology of controlling ONLY the birth rate of the poor.  If it were all on the up-and-up, altruistic as everyone seems to choose to accept, why the fraud to claim the altruistic deeds when they are something else?

Eugenics is one of the purest forms of evil that I can conceive - in the sense of ANYONE outside an individual making a choice for himself/herself.  The left bats around the notion of "my body, my choice," yet here is PP every single day manipulating the minds of young, mostly poor and often uneducated young women into making the choices that seem to clearly fit Sanger's racist world view.

This whole thread got started on the connection between Komen and PP.  Indy I believe suggested that Komen should have severed ties with PP with this "flap."  On the one hand, you have one organization truly trying benefit women's health and on the other, you have at best some clearly questionable, and probably illegal activities.

And please notice that the word "abortion" did not appear one single time in the above.  The problem I have with PP runs MUCH deeper than that.

     Myself, I'm all for birth control, the most effective method, in fact; it's called abstinence.

     The far left has an elitist view, and takes seriously the notion of culling the population, whether it be the elderly, those deemed racially unfit, the unborn, whomever.

A choice some folks wouldn't even consider.

Wow. This really is a big deal for you. I'm sorry but I really have to question your objectivity. I think you are putting an enormous amount of weight in this. To me PP is just another flawed and inefficient government agency. I don't doubt they have their corruptions, as organizations of their ilk tend to have, but I have a hard time believing they are significantly more corrupt than any other.

Sanger was a major advocate of birth control. She was, from what I can see, against abortion except when strongly advised by a physician in the interest of the mother's health. She carried ideas common at the time amongst American institutions. You can't discount those things if you consider yourself a rational and objective person. The U.S. was engaged in eugenics programs and ideas well before the Nazis, and in fact it was the U.S. embrace of those ideas that inspired them. It is unfortunate that this is the case and I would say that for the most part society learned its lesson. In a way it's a good thing that the Nazis did what they did because it closed the lid on that coffin and removed any doubt as to the nefarious potential of eugenics. But you seem to be taking the evils of a concept that was widely embraced in the U.S. and heaping it on the shoulders of one person. Sanger incorporated a popular concept into her views on birth control. Does that really warrant such intense attention? It almost seems obssessive at this point.

I don't fault you for your opinions on eugenics. I don't fault you for having a problem with PP. I'm suggesting that you are foaming at the mouth over a premise whose relevance is questionable at best. You seem to be applying a cultural Marxism-like conspiracy theory that, I'm sorry, just doesn't resonate with me. It draws attention away from what really is the core problem, that the law doesn't, and never has, recognized a human life before live birth. That's what needs to change, and with the help of medical science illuminating what it has, perhaps the law can adapt accordingly. If the pro-life movement really wants to make a difference they need to learn to prioritize where they apply their energies.

Flick, it's only a big deal for me to openly acknowledge that Sanger was a racist pig...not just an advocate of birth control.  Referring to a whole segment of the human race as "weeds" is evil.  Period.

PP is her baby.  It's not just a corrupt government agency....or, at the very least it may not be.  There may well be more to it than that.

It's government funded, they are INCREDIBLY biased in the advice they give young women in terms of how they should manage their "reproductive health" and yes, they are corrupt.  The defense people give this stuff is all steeped in accepting a prima facie altruistic motivation where there is no proof or evidence such a pure motivation exists and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

That this does not give you serious pause enough even to just for a moment to consider "what if" is, although a bit alarming to me, your prerogative.

Of course, at the risk of exciting Godwin again, the 1930's German's saw nothing wrong with their eugenics ideology and some were quite defensive of it.

Just how close to that path do you want to tread?   All I'm asking is if you think it is POSSIBLE, with the body of evidence presented, that PP is not what it seems, and is the good group many claim.

If your answer to that is "no," we are at "agree to disagree" territory.

And with that...peace to you, my friend.  As always, I welcome the opportunity to examine my thoughts these topics.

I don't know if they are INCREDIBLY biased in their advice or not. You appear certain of it. I've never been involved in a visit to a PP location, so I don't know. Nor can I find anything in researching about what a person encounters when visiting one that can be considered remotely objective. I invariably get one of two images: a) a young woman walking in and getting well-rounded advice on options or b) a young woman walking in to find Satan himself waiting with a coat-hanger. Nothing in between.

So I am left with nothing but my God-given reason to think for myself. I want less babies born into hopeless circumstances rather than more, whether that is eugenicist or not, I'll let you figure that out for yourself. Whatever means are effective BESIDES taking the life of an unborn child I tend to be okay with. If PP also administers abortions, as hospitals and physicians do as well, then it doesn't matter because they are operating within the the law insofar as how a human life is defined. I will say this once more and then I guess I've gone about as far as I can on this thread. Until the law changes in that regard, none of the rest of it matters. I'm not going on any campaign to shut down PP because I don't think it's necessary. The problem is with the law, and that's where people should focus their attention.

As for whether or not I think it's possible that PP is not what it seems, again, it doesn't matter. There is nothing for us to agree to disagree about. I haven't cared from the beginning. I've been insisting this entire time that the solution doesn't lie in the purpose or origin of PP. If abortion is illegal, then they can't do it. What do you think would happen? Do you think they would suddenly implode if abortion became illegal? Of course not. They would continue operations, and provide contraception.

Anyway, as I've said multiple times, I suggest redirecting your focus. PP is not the problem, the law is.

This has thus far proven to be a fascinating discussion, despite some of the threads drifting away from the original post on occasion.  I'm also glad it's done in a relatively civil manner for the most part too.   I look forward to reading more on it as people continue.


I don't know enough of the details, but I suspect she pays some money for it, not just waltzing on in and getting it for free but don't quote me on that one.  I also suspect abstinence isn't an option she would consider...

Again I can't speak towards the whole 'committing fraud' side of things, which in itself is a concern separate to the grounding ideology of the organisation [since I imagine there are different companies from all areas who will 'cook the books' in order to get more money regardless of their business model]

Anyways, as you all were.

Sadly,I must agree here. I feel that they would try to  continue despite what they do being declared against the law. The penalties for such activity would have to be extermely severe to stop it....and certain groups(the ACLU) would make sure that didn't happen.

Again, data previously posted in the thread:

http://liveaction.org/blog/pps-new-abortion-numbers-going-nowhere-but-up/

Also, I offer the anecdotal evidence from someone I know that also gets involved in teen pregnancy counseling, and from what I've been told, PP does NOT does discuss "all options" with pregnant teens.  Take that as you will...it's anecdotal.

But, yes I do think there's a bias.

I have presented the above chart (twice now) and if you can find data refuting it, I'm happy to see it and assimilate it my understanding.  Until then, with the data I have in front of me, the conclusion that they offer biased advice is warranted.

My focus in this discussion has been, and remains, the who and why PP 'targets' with their advice and for some reason it keeps getting misinterpreted as being that I am saying abortion should be illegal.

My contention is that PP is all about eradicating Sanger's Weeds.

I'm still waiting for something more substantive than "I don't want that to be true" to refute the claim.  If there is evidence of PP's pure motives out there, show it to me.  They DO counsel for abortions and DO provide birth control options for the poor and mostly uneducated to a MUCH higher extent than (a) other "family planning options and (b) other segments of society.

That's my claim and I've provided evidence to support it.  I'm not talking about the legality or even the morality of abortion in total, but the directed targeted of abortion toward one class of people.

My claim is that PP is a government funded arm of practical eugenics, with the underclass having been declared "the unfit."

Like I said before...prove me wrong and I'll shut up about it.    :teddyr:

Who misinterpreted what you wrote?  You've made it clear that your reams of data support your contention that PP is fraudulent and leans towards a Eugenics type extermination of undesirables ("weeds"). It's apparent that you think abortion should be illegal (though you haven't stressed that).  Flickjames has been stressing the law should be changed.  Repeatedly. 

That's condescending at best to those who may view your argument as skewered or flawed.  It's not what I've been reading.

Y'know, I've followed most of these links you've provided.  You don't think this article you've linked is biased, particularly on Live Action?  I am skeptical that you've "provided evidence" and "data" so much as biased commentary.  That is the "short coming" I had written about many posts ago. 

Here's what Planned Parenthood has to say about itself (no use of the word "weeds" apparent  :wink:):
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are-4648.htm (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are-4648.htm) 

I do think "abstinence" the best choice for avoiding STDs as well as unwanted pregnancy.  Contraception is the next best thing.  Nonetheless, people continue to have unprotected sex with consequences.  That's a reality.  Ignorance is never an answer, and the lack of sex education is such. 

I worry about lack of communication within the family. I believe that so many parents simply do not know what ther kids are up to. Plus a number don't bother to try and find out. So young girls get pregnant and are either afraid of the responsibility or too self-absorbed to want it.
As for older ladies...the ones legally responsible for themselves....I think that they are not aware that it is actually a life growing inside of them. Just an inconvenience. Of course,it all boils down to those old arguments:when does life begin and does the woman have the right to end life. I just cannot force myself to see this as a woman's health issue.....I see it as a moral issue. That in turn puts me at odds with PP for,no matter what good works they hide behind,their main focus is the prevention of babies.
This is my personal opinion....and I don't mean any offense to anyone here.

Tracy, I agree that it is a moral issue, totally and completely. It our motivations that differ. Even then, I don't think they differ as much as you may think. True, I am not a Christian, but I am respectful and reverent of God. To me, God's Law and Natural Law are one and the same. Natural Law says that a human life begins from the moment of conception. A unique, separate life is in place at this point. This is what guides my beliefs and my morals. So, be it indirectly, we agree from a spiritual place to some degree.

But even if we didn't, I've known atheists who are against abortion. Heck, the much maligned Margaret Sanger was against abortion. So how is it that Sanger, whom the pro-life movement despises and demonizes as a eugenist, racist pig on par with Adolf Hitler, considered abortion, and I quote, "a disgrace to humanity?" It's because, even in the 30's when she said that, before the advent of ultrasound technology that has confirmed when a human life begins, people were able to reason it. Even if there was a religion that embraced abortion, reason would tell us that this is still the taking of a human life, which is why there is such a thing as atheists who oppose abortion.

My thing all along has been that I simply don't understand the fixation with Sanger. There is no amount of explaining that will make me get it. It simply doesn't matter. Sanger's personal racial or eugenist beliefs do not affect the moral questions of abortion.

Yes....nicely put.  :wink:

Well, for my part, again, I have not been arguing abortion one way or another but have put forth the postulate that PP is an organization premised on the practice of eugenics.

I cannot state that any more clearly.  I've said it a number of time.

You acknowledge that Sanger was a racist eugenist (nice coin, btw) and I claim that PP practices eugenics targeted against Sanger's "unfit", those same people Sanger labeled as "weeds."

That's the connection.  Sorry that my points have not been about abortion's morality or legality.

AHD:

Nice try at a ad hominem, but logical fallacies are not scientific falsification.

Do the investigations exist or not?  If not, show me verifiable fact to support the claim.

Does PP advise young women to abort FAR FAR in excess to other options?  If not, show me the data to support that.

Look.  I'm not saying that they should NEVER advise abortion (though that might happen to be my personal viewpoint, that's not what I am arguing now).  What I am saying is that it's out of proportion given other options exist.

For an unwanted pregnancy, there are three options:

(1) Suck it up and have the baby anyway.  This is morally responsible choice - accepting responsibility for one's choices, but we'll put that on the back burner.

(2) Have the baby and put it up for adoption

(3) Terminate the pregnancy

Now, one would assume that some quasi even distribution would occur between options (2) and (3).  Yet, that does not occur.

Put another way...what is the socioeconomic distribution of aborted pregnancies?  Do all women in all classes have abortions vs adoption vs keeping the baby equally?  Do all races have abortions equally?

Let's find out, with some actual data:  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf

According to that census data, 48.2 per 1000 black women had abortions vs 13.8 per 1000 white women.

Now, can we square that number with a lower use of contraceptives? 

Let's find out:  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf  (same time period)

64.7 per 1000 white women reported using contraception vs 54.5 per 1000 for black women.

Does a 10% difference in contraceptive use equate with over 30% difference in number of women with unwanted pregnancies that terminated by abortion?

Oh wait, we might need one more piece of data (same table):

The number of women reported to be sexually active with no contraceptive use across both races is different by only about 4%: 10 per 1000 for black women vs 6 per 1000 for white women.

Now, add in the ALLEGATION, ruled true by at least one judge so far, that PP is committing fraud to provide abortion related services while reporting "their good work" as something else and the fact that PP's client base is largely 'the underclass,' can you not at least acknowledge that there may well in fact be a connection between modern PP practices and the racist founder Sanger?

It's not the "what" (abortion), it's the "who" (mostly unfit, as Sanger would define it) and the "who's telling them" (PP).

I guess I'm done now.  With no data to contradict what I'm saying, it's pointless for me to keep saying it.

This thread has gone some strange directions. I guess I've never fully understood what is being argued, and I can't keep track.

In earlier posts you talk about abortion and that they are encouraging it and not reporting what they really do, suggesting it is at the very least a premise. Now you're saying it's not about abortion but only about the organization's sinister origins. Forgive me if I have trouble following your intentions. Do you want them to be shut down? Do you want them to be more heavily regulated? Essentially, what do you want to see happen?

In any event, ulthar, I guess I don't understand your vitriolic fixation with Sanger. It seems like much ado about very little. I won't say nothing because it seems to have some relevance, if not much importance, at least for me. I don't put any more stock in Sanger's eugenicist views as I do Alexander Graham Bell's. It was a sign of the times. It's unfortunate that the widespread eugenics practices in the U.S. were what inspired the Nazi Party, but society figured it out and good for us. I think you would benefit from dropping this obsessive fixation. If you want to do some investigative work into the real motives of PP, then go to it. I would love to see anything you find. But I for one couldn't care less if they're giving contraceptives to people. I only care if they are encouraging abortions, an if they are, I want them not to be able to. That's as far as my interest in their operations goes. The rest of this is just silly to me.

My fixation is not with Sanger, but with the organization she founded that I believe (based on the data I see before me) is premised on systematically controlling the population of one group of people as decided by another group.  Planned Parenthood has become something like a socially accepted (even touted) first step in a Final Solution-esque means for one master race to assert itself.

The purpose of mentioning the fraud investigations was to point out and emphasize that they are LYING...those that defend PP on the premise of "they do good things, like pass out birth control to the poor" are, at least in part, wrong.  Maybe it's a little, maybe it's a lot.  The dollar figures suggest that there is far more to it than a few percent off in the graph that keeps getting posted as evidence for "the good that they do."  You know, that graph that I have pointed out is pointless because the data it's based on is FALSIFIED charting as uncovered by not one but SEVERAL federal investigations.

Come on.  What I've been saying is not that complicated.  My hypothesis: Planned Parenthood is a much darker and sinister organization than many what to admit (for various reasons).  One of the darker, sinister MECHANISMS they use to enact their own brand of eugenics is is the lopsided recommendations for abortion based on race (and or income/social standing).

I've presented my case.  For you to say that it's unclear what I'm saying is at this point hard for me to fathom. 

I cannot say it any more clearly than that.

Alexander Graham Bell did not implement an agency that has essentially become a social institution with millions of people convinced on the "good they do."  Until my data is falsified ... data suggestive of sinister motives ... I can see what they do as nothing short of the very evil I've described earlier in the thread applies to the very premise of eugenics.

At the core of this is that you accept some "good" in eugenics. I do not.  I reject any aspect of one human being telling another (directly or indirectly) that they have a right to produce offspring or not for ANY reason.  This is not the same as "birth control" as practiced by an individual for their own purpose and reason.

I regret this discussion.  Believe me.  I regret ever clicking the link.

Ulthar, "ad hominem"?  I pointed out no flaw of yours, but perhaps in your citations.  Nor am I interested in defending PP.  I just don't think an inundation of "data" or lots and lots of words makes for useful internet forum discussion.  Plus, I think you're guilty of what you accuse others of.  Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote above.  You'll have to forgive me though, arguing as I do "almost as if" I were "an educated man".  :wink:

You "regret" the discussion or clicking the link?  I think you debated admirably.  But, take your ball and go home if you must.   :thumbup: :smile:

Peace. 

Nor is what I have been saying.

I'll bite, respectfully of course, since you asked for some data to refute some of your claims and I'm curious as to your opinions on a few points that's I've pondered over.  Please forgive my badly put together post as it's late, but I wouldn't mind seeing how my reasoning is at this hour.   :wink:

I suppose my main point is I find it difficult to equate PP with some kind of malicious final-solution esque ideology, and I'll hopefully outline why below by countering a few of your points.

Mind you, I have my own issues with PP based on what I've seen so far: the fraud aspect is probably the most troubling to me, so please don't paint this as a defense of the organisation as a whole, I merely disagree with your interpretation of their intentions.



On point one: the three options for unwanted pregnancy.  I don't see how options 2 and 3 are equal in terms of a choice.  In many cases the strain of an unintended pregnancy on someone, both socially and physically, would mean that point three, a relatively simple procedure, would be by far a more popular option for someone rather than going through 9 months to bring a baby to term in option 2.  It makes perfect sense to me that there is no even distribution between the two, especially if the person has no major moral qualms about option 3...

Add to that the fact that if you're poor and you may not be able to hold onto your job if you fall pregnant or afford the proper health care and I'd say there is a significant difference between the viability of options 2 vs 3.




Never having really delved to much into census data until now, you'll have to forgive me if this comes off half-cocked.

You linked to a number of statistics discussing the % difference in abortion rates by race [in this case black/white] and questioned the discrepancy between the numbers. 

Let me put my own spin on things here as to the reason why there is a discrepancy based on economic factors rather than an overtly eugenics argument using the same census data you used:

Apparently the poverty line for a couple is at $14,710.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml)


The link below is a percentage distribution of families by race and income.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0695.pdf (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0695.pdf)

In particular I draw your attention to table 695.  Taking the above mentioned poverty line of $15,000 as our starting point, the % of families whose income was between $10,000 and $15,000 was 3% for the white families but 6.6% for the black families.

I'd say a 100% difference between them definitely accounts for the difference in abortion rates, since it stands to logical reason that a low income family would consider abortion more readily as an option, than one who isn't sitting below the poverty line.

If I really wanted to draw the bow a bit long, I could also argue that if anything the fact that only 30% more had abortions, despite the over 100% imbalance almost indicates the opposite point and suggests more white families of a lower income bracket are having abortions in % than others.  Sorry, thats probably too long and the bow snapped.   :buggedout:


Put simply, there are more black families in poverty than white ones, so of course there are higher instances of abortion in black families than in white ones, regardless of contraception use/what PP says.  Forgetting about abortion rates for a second, the same statistic would indicate that as an organisation created to help poor people with sexual health issues they would have more dealings with those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, again regardless of race, since 75% of their 'clients' are at or below the poverty level [that stat was found on wikipedia as much as it pains me to quote wikis]

This fact, to me, is hardly a reason to equate PP with some sinister eugenics motives.

Ulthar asked about the who and why PP targets with their advice and I think the answer is infinitely simpler than his.  Who do they target: the poor [since people who can afford proper health care can just go to their own personal GP/go somewhere better] and the why, well I mean, it seems common sense to me: a family who cannot afford a child, won't, if given the option [assuming, again, that they have no MAJOR, moral qualms about the issue], so of course that's going to be the more prevalent option.  If they happen to focus on a particular race its merely because there's a much larger percentage of that race in poverty who needs their assistance...

Anyways, I am merely suggesting that Sanger's opinions, and theories on eugenics in general, should be considered separate from the organisation of PP as it is today, and I hope that the above made sense as it's almost 2:00am here.

:cheers:

I've been thinking along similar lines to dean: basically that any statistical analysis of PP must take into consideration that the original sample is highly skewed and not representative of the US population as a whole (and thus not directly comparable to statistics gathered on the general population).  There is a strong selection bias in operation.

ulthar and I have been arguing back and forth for a while, essentially about two different things. I just don't understand the fixation. My understanding of ulthar's position is that Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenist (a), she founded PP (+ b), and therefore PP is an organization with a racist eugenist agenda (=c). He provided some statistical data about abortions by race as supporting evidence that PP is carrying out this agenda. I didn't get into the inherent skewing in the data because I wasn't really concerned about it, arguing instead from ideological ground about something that was apparently not what ulthar was trying to establish.

Whatever the case, PP is what it is. I condemn whatever they do that I don't agree with, and don't worry about the rest of it. People can choose to go to PP or not, and if somebody below the poverty line can safely prevent pregnancy in the first place, and if PP is helping to do that, then in my opinion it's well-spent money if it prevents the cost and burden on the rest of us that an unwanted child will bring.

I really don't care about Sanger's personal beliefs. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves because it was such common practice for plantation owners in Virginia during his life, yet he was ideologically opposed to slavery and wanted to see it abolished. So I don't doubt his genuine wishes for abolition. I kind of view Sanger's views in a similar light. Most white people during her time had questionable racial views, at least compared to today's standards. It was simply part of the generation. Eugenics was a popular concept at the time in the U.S. that resulted from the scientific explosion that occured right after the advent of the Industrial Revolution. She adopted popular eugenics philosophies and worked them into her platform. I'm not saying this is the case, but I wouldn't dismiss the notion that eugenics was adopted by her because it was a popular concept spawning plenty of legislation at the time and it would help further her cause. Whatever the case, I don't doubt that she genuinely cared about the welfare of women and of society in general. There is ample evidence from quotation that she was also genuinely opposed to abortion and considered them a disgrace, something I agree with. So, if she championed birth control and it resulted in the prevention of millions of pregancies to high-risk families in the first place, then I see that as a good thing, and I don't much care about what her unfortunate views were, just like I don't care if some founders owned slaves. They still enacted a system of government which was contrary to the notion of slavery and it worked itself out. Society's general rejection of eugenics also worked itself out. No need to sweat the small stuff.

What I have been "arguing" for is the production of data that disproved my claim, my assertion.  That's it.  Nothing more.

Dean is the first person in this thread that has done that.

I have crafted the essence of my reply to Dean's (excellent) post, but may or not post it.  It is getting to be pointless at this time.  The gist of it is, however, that selection bias works in the wrong  direction to "disprove" my assertion if you think about the numbers.  But that's all a dead horse by now.

I issued a "challenge" and four pages later, Dean stepped up to it.   My point was a kind of sociological experiment, that when one asks for DATA in a discussion, especially an emotionally charged one,  they don't get it.  Instead, one gets philosophy, ideology and reasons why data need not be presented for whatever reason.

So, Flick, that's the fixation..to the concept of logical conclusion from factual data.

Dean and I can now have, if we choose, a meaningful conversation offline on the data and how they are to be interpreted.  That's familiar ground for me.

Baloney?  Perhaps... perhaps not!!!