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?
July 24, 2014, 01:42:21 AM
529853 Posts in 39988 Topics by 4993 Members
Latest Member: WhiteGirl
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 5232 times)
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1527
Posts: 10679


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #45 on: February 16, 2012, 04:05:49 PM »

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.
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.
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. 

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

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
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 

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. 
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
tracy
Inventor of the Turnip Twaddler and
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 302
Posts: 3124



« Reply #46 on: February 17, 2012, 03:52:18 PM »

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.
Logged

Yes,I'm fine....as long as I don't look too closely.
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #47 on: February 17, 2012, 04:13:57 PM »

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.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
tracy
Inventor of the Turnip Twaddler and
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 302
Posts: 3124



« Reply #48 on: February 18, 2012, 01:24:58 PM »

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
Logged

Yes,I'm fine....as long as I don't look too closely.
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 320
Posts: 3793


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 18, 2012, 04:34:59 PM »



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.



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.
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 #50 on: February 18, 2012, 06:08:29 PM »

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.
Logged

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

Karma: 320
Posts: 3793


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2012, 07:04:29 PM »

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.
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: 1527
Posts: 10679


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #52 on: February 18, 2012, 07:35:21 PM »

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. 

Logged

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

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2012, 01:01:02 AM »

Quote
Come on.  What I've been saying is not that complicated.

Nor is what I have been saying.
Logged

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

Karma: 218
Posts: 3194



« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2012, 10:09:14 AM »


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.


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.



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.

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.


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.




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.


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


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

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
Logged

------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Newt
Mostly Harmless
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 634
Posts: 2922


I want to be Ripley when I grow up.


« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2012, 12:27:34 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2012, 12:29:35 PM by Newt » Logged

"I absolutely adore movies. Even bad ones. I don't like pretentious ones, but a good bad movie, you must admit, is great." - Roddy Mc Dowell
"May I offer you a Peek Frean?" - Walter Bishop
"Thank you for appreciating my descent into deviant behavior, Mr. Reese." - Harold Finch
 "I'm going to need a swat team ready to mobilize, street maps covering all of Florida, a pot of coffee, 12 jammie dodgers and a fez." -  11
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2012, 10:17:04 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 10:19:35 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: 320
Posts: 3793


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2012, 12:02:55 PM »


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.


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.

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: 1527
Posts: 10679


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2012, 09:39:13 PM »

Baloney?  Perhaps... perhaps not!!!
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
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.