Is Planned Parenthood Racist? - Page 2 - US Messageboards

AllieBaba · June 4th, 2012, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by moomin

Right, so it's even in the mission statement. Let's give them props for that. And the problem is what, exactly? PP goes to where abortion does most good in terms of lowering the welfare drag on society. Why would anybody object to that?

Because it doesn't do any good at all. They victimize women and kill children, claiming that it's for the "betterment" of society...when really all they're doing is send the message that babies and women have no value...

And it doesn't help a beleagured population to decimate it. Generally speaking, for a population to survive oppression they need to multiply at a GREATER rate. We aren't helping African populations that are being targeted for genocide by assisting using negative eugenics.

trlrtrash13 · June 5th, 2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by moomin

Right, so it's even in the mission statement. Let's give them props for that. And the problem is what, exactly? PP goes to where abortion does most good in terms of lowering the welfare drag on society. Why would anybody object to that?

I don't suppose there would be a problem with it if it weren't in code in their mission statement. If they were as straightforward as you are being here and said "Hey, we want to abort black babies because they are a burden on society" and then people were allowed to judge the plan based on their honest admission I think people would have less of a problem with it.

moomin · June 5th, 2012, 03:35 PM

You want PP to talk candidly of race issues? Well, I can agree that would be fine. I'm just not sure I see why you expect them to do what nobody else in the US does, as John Derbyshire found out to his cost recently. It seems to me that to single them out for demands of honesty on an issue where you all drown in officially sanctioned lies otherwise... smacks of looking for any club to clobber an entity you dislike for other reasons. Why should PP be more candid about race than, say, the RNC?

AllieBaba · June 5th, 2012, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by moomin

You want PP to talk candidly of race issues? Well, I can agree that would be fine. I'm just not sure I see why you expect them to do what nobody else in the US does, as John Derbyshire found out to his cost recently. It seems to me that to single them out for demands of honesty on an issue where you all drown in officially sanctioned lies otherwise... smacks of looking for any club to clobber an entity you dislike for other reasons. Why should PP be more candid about race than, say, the RNC?

Because they're killing them, and calling it "health care".

The RNC isn't.

trlrtrash13 · June 6th, 2012, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by moomin

You want PP to talk candidly of race issues? Well, I can agree that would be fine. I'm just not sure I see why you expect them to do what nobody else in the US does, as John Derbyshire found out to his cost recently. It seems to me that to single them out for demands of honesty on an issue where you all drown in officially sanctioned lies otherwise... smacks of looking for any club to clobber an entity you dislike for other reasons. Why should PP be more candid about race than, say, the RNC?

I didn't suggest they should be candid about race. I said they should be candid about their agenda. If it happens to be a racial issue, than so be it. Here is the simple truth. They call themselves "Planned Parenthood" yet they specialize in birth control and abortion. Their goal is not to "plan parenthood" it is to prevent it.

moomin · June 6th, 2012, 12:12 PM

Is that leap of logic so long? Abort for unplanned parenthood equals planned parenthood for pregnancies carried to term. If this is somehow misleading, again it seems like a really petty complaint in a country that has a Department of _Defense_. Politically expedient euphemisms abound: if you have an issue with that there are far larger fish to fry than PP.

And looking at the tags added to this thread, the argument for "not demanding candid talk about race" seems weak.

Midnight Marauder · June 6th, 2012, 12:27 PM

Here's the genesis and the roots of planned parenthood:

As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."[74] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[75][76] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.[77] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics

Their generational attempts to sugar coat and mask their intent are working fairly well.

It all sounds so Hitleresque... The question becomes, who sets the criteria and is dark pigmented skin color one of the criteria for being "unfit?"

moomin · June 6th, 2012, 05:35 PM

What in the quote do you find objectionable?

And incidentally, so far the only ones who have equated "unfit" with "black" are those that would pin national socialism on PP. The irony of that is staggering.

Midnight Marauder · June 6th, 2012, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by moomin

What in the quote do you find objectionable?

And incidentally, so far the only ones who have equated "unfit" with "black" are those that would pin national socialism on PP. The irony of that is staggering.

You're okay with the elites setting the criteria on who is "unfit" or not? Or anyone? Who sets the criteria?

Earlier you said you were okay with PP targeting blacks. Are YOU equating "unfit" with dark skin color? I'm sure not.

trlrtrash13 · June 6th, 2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by moomin

Is that leap of logic so long? Abort for unplanned parenthood equals planned parenthood for pregnancies carried to term. If this is somehow misleading, again it seems like a really petty complaint in a country that has a Department of _Defense_. Politically expedient euphemisms abound: if you have an issue with that there are far larger fish to fry than PP.

And looking at the tags added to this thread, the argument for "not demanding candid talk about race" seems weak.

That is completely inaccurate. Aborting an unplanned pregnancy doesn't equate to anything for a planned one. As far as frying fish, I will fry the ones I chose to fry. If you have a problem with the DOD, you could start a post about that and we could debate it. From where I sit, that has nothing to do with planned parenthood.

As for the tags on this post, if you would read the title I ask a question about planned parenthood. I even included a poll so people could weigh in directly on the question. But asking a question is much different than making an accusation. Hence the discussion.

You are all over the pace here. It is hard to follow you. One post you seem to say they are racist, yet in the next you seem to object to that statement. It's unclear to me where you are trying to go with this.