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 17, 2014, 12:51:04 PM
533623 Posts in 40369 Topics by 5060 Members
Latest Member: GameOverManGameOver
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 5498 times)
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1393
Posts: 8148


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #30 on: February 14, 2012, 11:02:51 PM »

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
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 #31 on: February 15, 2012, 01:14:46 AM »

Nicely put, Indy. Thank you science.
Logged

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

Karma: 220
Posts: 3220



« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2012, 08:31:59 AM »

 
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.
Logged

------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2012, 09:32:00 AM »


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.
Logged

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

Karma: 321
Posts: 3817


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2012, 12:19:00 PM »



I agree that her views on race and eugenics were questionable.

...

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.
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: 2534


Hey....white women were in season.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2012, 01:21:40 PM »

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

     Here in Texas, we're about to have a law passed that will make it mandatory for women seeking abortions to view an ultrasound video of the child....truth in advertising, I'd say.
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: 2534


Hey....white women were in season.


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2012, 01:23:35 PM »


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.

     Myself, I'm all for birth control, the most effective method, in fact; it's called abstinence.
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: 2534


Hey....white women were in season.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2012, 01:34:10 PM »

     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.
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.
tracy
Inventor of the Turnip Twaddler and
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 302
Posts: 3124



« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2012, 01:36:32 PM »


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.

     Myself, I'm all for birth control, the most effective method, in fact; it's called abstinence.
A choice some folks wouldn't even consider.
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 #39 on: February 15, 2012, 02:23:06 PM »

Quote
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.

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.
Logged

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

Karma: 321
Posts: 3817


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2012, 03:16:56 PM »

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.
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 #41 on: February 15, 2012, 03:54:28 PM »

Quote
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.

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.
Logged

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

Karma: 220
Posts: 3220



« Reply #42 on: February 15, 2012, 10:54:51 PM »

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.


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?


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.
Logged

------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
tracy
Inventor of the Turnip Twaddler and
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 302
Posts: 3124



« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2012, 01:17:29 PM »

Quote
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.
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.


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.
Logged

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

Karma: 321
Posts: 3817


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2012, 01:43:10 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.

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
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.