Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2014, 05:19:15 PM
533944 Posts in 40398 Topics by 5067 Members
Latest Member: E1673
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  Komen VP steps down after Planned Parenthood flap « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Komen VP steps down after Planned Parenthood flap  (Read 5529 times)
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 322
Posts: 3824


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2012, 11:35:46 PM »


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.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1536
Posts: 10774


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2012, 12:08:14 AM »


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. 
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 322
Posts: 3824


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2012, 12:29:34 AM »


I wouldn't disagree with much of what you say, but it's prejudicial.  Your failure to see that is perhaps your shortcoming.



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.

Quote

 PLANNED PARENTHOOD is about choosing a child instead of getting knocked up.  All other arguments are theoretical. 



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." 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 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.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1536
Posts: 10774


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2012, 01:25:46 AM »

...
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. 
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 322
Posts: 3824


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2012, 10:01:18 AM »


Your "character flaws"...?  Did I do that? 


Ooops, "shortcoming" not "character flaw."  BIG DIFFERENCE!   BounceGiggle

 TeddyR

I like eggs.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
alandhopewell
A NorthCoaster In Texas
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 253
Posts: 2537


Hey....white women were in season.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2012, 01:38:35 PM »

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.

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.

     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.

Logged

If it's true what they say, that GOD created us in His image, then why should we not love creating, and why should we not continue to do so, as carefully and ethically as we can, on whatever scale we're capable of?

     The choice is simple; refuse to create, and refuse to grow, or build, with care and love.
alandhopewell
A NorthCoaster In Texas
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 253
Posts: 2537


Hey....white women were in season.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2012, 01:45:57 PM »

ulthar,

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

Quote
More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

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.

Quote
The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

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.

Quote
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921

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.



     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.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 01:57:48 PM by alandhopewell » Logged

If it's true what they say, that GOD created us in His image, then why should we not love creating, and why should we not continue to do so, as carefully and ethically as we can, on whatever scale we're capable of?

     The choice is simple; refuse to create, and refuse to grow, or build, with care and love.
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2012, 10:24:09 AM »

ulthar,

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

Quote
More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

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.

Quote
The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

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.

Quote
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921

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.



     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.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 322
Posts: 3824


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2012, 01:01:11 PM »


Eugenics is a flawed concept to be sure, but the underlying motivation from the outset was not inherently evil.



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.


Quote

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.
 


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.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2012, 03:16:11 PM »


Eugenics is a flawed concept to be sure, but the underlying motivation from the outset was not inherently evil.



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.


Quote

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.
 


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.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 322
Posts: 3824


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2012, 06:00:14 PM »


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.


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."

Quote

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?


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.

Quote

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.


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.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 237
Posts: 2944



« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2012, 11:38:25 PM »

Quote
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


....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.



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?
Logged
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1394
Posts: 8166


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2012, 11:55:12 PM »

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.
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2012, 09:50:20 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 09:55:11 AM by Flick James » Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 322
Posts: 3824


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2012, 05:52:23 PM »


....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.


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:

Quote

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


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?
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  Komen VP steps down after Planned Parenthood flap « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.