Can you succinctly tell me what I should be taking away from this? I don't get the central point you're making.

SF,

Oh, I don't know. How about something like: Planned Parenthood is rooted in eugenics and to this day operates on racist assumptions.

Something like that.

I take this away: Liberals are racist baby killers.

Hell awaits.

How about something like: Planned Parenthood is rooted in eugenics

Well, some of our best institutions are rooted in genocidal war. I enjoy Volkswagon cars, and...well, a lot of the towns I've lived in have had Native American names. Funny, I don't see many Indians in these towns.

and to this day operates on racist assumptions.

Specifically what racist assumptions do they operate on? I don't see it.

The stunt is creepy, and on the balance I don't think they should have taken the money. But the thing you're not getting is that Planned Parenthood comes into the game assuming that abortions for people who want them are not a bad thing.

Most importantly, whether or not it was in poor taste and judgment to accept the donation (which I believe it to have been), I don't see how it makes Planned Parenthood racist.

I know, you conservatives are so eager to try out the race card, you haven't got it down quite yet. Just keep practicing and you'll sound just like the stupidest liberal in no time flat.

Kerry,

Funny. If you can say this person represents the views and goals of Planned Parenthood, I guess it can be equally stated that Fred Phelps represents all of Christianity.

"Funny. If you can say this person represents the views and goals of Planned Parenthood, I guess it can be equally stated that Fred Phelps represents all of Christianity."

Not hardly. Fred Phelps fails the test on every criterion of Christianity except the "gospel of inclusion" of Carlton Pearson, by which everyone is saved, with no restrictions whatsoever (which has been rejected by everyone else.) This woman was REPRESENTING PP, was PAID BY it, was schooled in their policies, and would have been given a raise by Margaret Sanger.

"Specifically what racist assumptions do they operate on? I don't see it."

They were willing to take the donation aimed SPECIFICALLY at preventing the existence of black children. After the "donor" said "the less black kids out there the better," the PP flack IMMEDIATELY launched into "lock down the donation" mode and moved to make sure this donor ended up giving them money. The only reason PP itself ever objected was because the donor was revealed to be an actor. Had they sent the money, I guarantee you, there would have been no objection, and PP would have been happy to use it to kill a black baby, even though the donor's intent was genocidal.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by "racist assumptions", and your last answer makes it no clearer to me. I don't think you understood my point, either, so permit me to restate. It's crass, but why should they care about the donor's motives? Let's say that a crazy white supremacist donates money to the United Negro College Fund because he thinks, insanely, that education is bad for black people. Should they keep it?

Like I said, you're not getting where they are coming from, wherein abortion for a woman who seeks it is considered a good thing. Yes, we know you don't agree with that, but that's not the point here, is it?

"It's crass, but why should they care about the donor's motives?"

Because people of principle don't do the bidding of those with overtly evil intentions.

"Let's say that a crazy white supremacist donates money to the United Negro College Fund because he thinks, insanely, that education is bad for black people. Should they keep it?"

No. Not if they know that is his intention.

"Like I said, you're not getting where they are coming from, wherein abortion for a woman who seeks it is considered a good thing."

Oh, I know all about that position. And it's that very position that allows a person the inhumanity to discard the overt evil of the donor in order to get the money. Because the MOST important thing for a womon's freedom and independence is the unfettered right to choose to abort a baby, from conception to birth, no questions asked. One of the few places where male chauvinists and radical feminists agree, though for different reasons. MCs just wanted unlimited access to women, and RFs continue to move steadily toward a world in which men are neither existent nor necessary. (The Revolution will come, and you will not be missed, old man.)

"Yes, we know you don't agree with that, but that's not the point here, is it?"

No, the point is that people whose fundamental moral precept is "first, do the fetus harm" cannot be trusted to make good moral choices--such as telling a racist where to put his filthy lucre. PP wants money. And it doesn't care where it comes from--though, in this case, its founder would be more than pleased to set up whole departments of funding just to kill blacks, Christians, the feeble-minded, Mexicans--all those the intellectual elite deem "unfit."

No, the point is that people whose fundamental moral precept is "first, do the fetus harm" cannot be trusted to make good moral choices--such as telling a racist where to put his filthy lucre.

Frankly anybody who brings a child into this world that they can't support has already done the fetus harm, so I guess they shouldn't be trusted with the ability to have sex either?

Actually the more appropriate term above would be procreate not sex.

I think I made my point. There is nothing racist per se about what PP did. We all know how you feel about abortion in general, and on a few points I agree with you. But that's not really relevant here to implying that there is something racist about what Planned Parenthood did.

No. Not if they know that is his intention.

Well, you may be consistent, but this is a bit silly IMO.

"Frankly anybody who brings a child into this world that they can't support has already done the fetus harm, so I guess they shouldn't be trusted with the ability to have sex either?"

You are SUCH a eugenicist.

"I think I made my point."

I'm sure you do.

"There is nothing racist per se about what PP did."

Then you must have a definition of "racist" that the world is not yet aware of.

"We all know how you feel about abortion in general, and on a few points I agree with you. But that's not really relevant here to implying that there is something racist about what Planned Parenthood did."

No, my personal feelings are NOT relevant. What the PP flack did, and what she was willing to countenance for money, were racist, regardless of my thoughts about it.

"Frankly anybody who brings a child into this world that they can't support has already done the fetus harm, so I guess they shouldn't be trusted with the ability to have sex either?"

You are SUCH a eugenicist.

No I am not. You said these people can't be trusted, and that they are harming their fetuses and I simply followed your statement to its logical conclusion.

"No I am not. You said these people can't be trusted, and that they are harming their fetuses and I simply followed your statement to its logical conclusion."

No, you didn't. You followed it to YOUR conclusion. I don't buy your premise. I don't believe in selective breeding for economic advantage. You don't harm a baby by giving it birth (unless you really do it wrong!)

You ARE a eugenicist (the weakest of the weakest links.) Goodbye!

Wait, wait. Just to go over that again.

Your contention is that killing unborn babies doesn't "harm" them, but giving birth to them in adverse economic circumstances DOES?

Wow. That's actually beyond eugenics and pushing far into the crassest economic determinism with a downright unAmerican dash of caste system. A sort of Marcusian-Marxist semi-Hinduism.

Congratulations. I think you've invented a new mental disorder.

Kerry,

Your contention is that people who would harm their fetus shouldn't be trusted, and frankly whether they have an abortion, or bring a child into the world that child is going to be "HARMED". The statistics are quite clear that kids born in most of these situations where abortion would have been used, end up impoverished, abused, etc. And generally these conditions carry through to the rest of their life, and end up affecting their children.

So if you really really cared about the "harming of the fetus" part, you would logically want to prevent any type of harm coming to that child, which means you not only would want to stop abortions, but also stop people from having kids who have been statistically shown to likely live miserable lives because of how they were brought into this world.

But frankly you aren't worried about the "harm" that comes to a child beyond the fetus stage, or you would be a strong advocate of preventing pregnancy among high risk groups, like crack addicts, and teens. And its quite clear that conservatives would ban condoms, and all other manner of contraceptives even though they would prevent mountains of misery and harm.

And its one thing to want to sterilize people, versus giving them the power to prevent pregnancy. People in places like India, Bangladesh, and Africa would probably not live in the squalid misery that they do, if the women over there had more power to control how often they got pregnant. And its not just I who say this, it is the mother's over there who end up with 10 children (because their husband want sex all the time) who are telling the rest of the world it would have been nice if they only had 2-3 kids. They'd been better off with far fewer mouth's to feed.

Oh and to say they should just abstain from sex if they don't want more kids, is as ignorant a statement about the real world and their cultural pressures as one could make.

"Your contention is that people who would harm their fetus shouldn't be trusted, and frankly whether they have an abortion, or bring a child into the world that child is going to be "HARMED"."

I disagree. That's why I said you came to YOUR conclusion. Not the "logical" one. And my contention is not that "people who would harm their fetus shouldn't be trusted." My contention is that people who would KILL THEIR UNBORN BABY have no ability to make moral choices.

"The statistics are quite clear that kids born in most of these situations where abortion would have been used, end up impoverished, abused, etc. And generally these conditions carry through to the rest of their life, and end up affecting their children."

Every part of that is statistically, anecdotally, and morally untrue. Moreover, it is utterly cruel to tell any group of people that they cannot rise above their circumstances. Your deterministic worldview is, frankly, much more strict than any religion I have ever seen, and as sadistic as any game the Marquis ever thought up.

Show me the evidence that people do not change their economic circumstances during their lifetime, and I will show you the end of the American experiment. That's what this nation is founded on--the truth that ALL men are created equal. And NO man has the right to deprive ANY of life.

Here's Thomas Sowell with real data from the treasury department about economic mobility over time:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/01/23/dangerous_demagoguery_part_ii?page=1

"So if you really really cared about the "harming of the fetus" part, you would logically want to prevent any type of harm coming to that child..."

which I do, but I don't believe that birth "harms" a child.

"...which means you not only would want to stop abortions, but also stop people from having kids who have been statistically shown to likely live miserable lives because of how they were brought into this world."

I don't believe in distributing human rights on the basis of statistical prognostication.

"But frankly you aren't worried about the "harm" that comes to a child beyond the fetus stage, or you would be a strong advocate of preventing pregnancy among high risk groups, like crack addicts, and teens."

I am very concerned about born children. I have three of them. I teach dozens. I do not advocate pregnancy among "high risk groups," but not because it's bad for babies. I don't advocate it because it's another complication in an already complicated life.

"And its quite clear that conservatives would ban condoms, and all other manner of contraceptives even though they would prevent mountains of misery and harm."

I believe you are quite wrong on this. Conservatives are not generally against condoms. They are against handing them out to people who ought not to be having sex. And I do not believe that not having children prevents misery and harm. Nor do I believe that having children in any one particular circumstance creates it. Single childless people have been known to be extraordinarily miserable (like Marilyn Monroe, for example.) And people with no money and many children have been known to be deliriously happy. (Homer Simpson's plaintive cry, notwithstanding: "I have three kids and no money! Why can't I have no kids and three money?")

"And its one thing to want to sterilize people, versus giving them the power to prevent pregnancy. People in places like India, Bangladesh, and Africa would probably not live in the squalid misery that they do, if the women over there had more power to control how often they got pregnant."

Then here's an idea. Why don't you go bother those people and leave the people who are NOT overpopulated (Americans) ALONE?????

"And its not just I who say this, it is the mother's over there who end up with 10 children (because their husband want sex all the time) who are telling the rest of the world it would have been nice if they only had 2-3 kids. They'd been better off with far fewer mouth's to feed."

I'm sure you've spent a lot of time talking to them.

"Oh and to say they should just abstain from sex if they don't want more kids, is as ignorant a statement about the real world and their cultural pressures as one could make."

Yes, of course, I remember. I know the party line. Children, men, foreigners and poor people are incapable of self-control. The only people wise enough to exercise any are you brilliant elites--and you don't have to, because you have the right to INDULGE your appetites all you like.

Every part of that is statistically, anecdotally, and morally untrue. Moreover, it is utterly cruel to tell any group of people that they cannot rise above their circumstances. Your deterministic worldview is, frankly, much more strict than any religion I have ever seen, and as sadistic as any game the Marquis ever thought up.

Is it, where is your evidence. I already have mine, because the facts are well known what a crack baby's life is like, its well known that the impoverished are more like to abuse and neglect their children, and its also well known that those who are impoverished are more likely to restore to a life of crime, and thus end up in prison. So tell me none these are true.

Show me the evidence that people do not change their economic circumstances during their lifetime, and I will show you the end of the American experiment.

A brain dead crack baby probably isn't going to change his/her life much. Abusers are likely to abuse their kids, and so on. This cycle is well documented. So is the cycle that poverty begets more poverty.

Sure a few might break out of this cycle, but reality is that most will not.

"And its quite clear that conservatives would ban condoms, and all other manner of contraceptives even though they would prevent mountains of misery and harm."

I believe you are quite wrong on this. Conservatives are not generally against condoms. They are against handing them out to people who ought not to be having sex.

Hmm that's funny, because every time Republicans dominate congress they want to cut off funding to the developing world, much of it dealing with the distribution condoms and how to use them. They like you hope to teach them abstinence, even though this is neither practical or realistic, just like it isn't realistic in the US. You live in a dream world where you think withhold condoms from the sexuality active is going to achieve abstinence, where the reality is they are going to continue having sex, and in the end end up having 10 babies per family, STD's, AIDS, poverty, miserable lives and death.

I'm sure you've spent a lot of time talking to them.

Not me, but those who are actively working in these societies trying to stop the population explosions that are crippling individual families and societies in general. They unlike you who are sitting in your armchair dreaming about idealistic notions, deal with the real world and know exactly what is going to solve the problem...because they have seen what happens when planned parenthood like programs are allowed to thrive in these communities. It allows families to control their futures, and improve them. Its very well documented, unlike the success of abstinence programs.

Yes, of course, I remember. I know the party line. Children, men, foreigners and poor people are incapable of self-control. The only people wise enough to exercise any are you brilliant elites--and you don't have to, because you have the right to INDULGE your appetites all you like.

Kerry the realities of this are well documented. The most educated societies on the Earth are also the ones who have the greatest ability (both in education and tools) to control their families. This is not a coincidence. In fact there is very welcome documented historical account of the three step stage that western societies went through regarding their population, from the pre-boom period, to the population explosion, and the post explosion period (now), and its very well known that the reason the explosions occurred is because while women still were having lots of kids like they had for centuries, those kids were surviving due the advent of cures for disease that normally killed off half the kids produced. And it wasn't until Western societies discovered ways of controlling the number of births that populations stopped growing. Nobody tried to stop people from having sex, because nobody had the illusion that adults would be able to abstain from something that is an innate basic human function and desire.

So here you come along, not wanting developing countries that account for 3/4's of the world population to have access to the same technology that prevented America from having 1 billion people in it today, on the hope that your abstinance BS will work. So you would throw out the sure fire method that has led in large part to the life style you now live (yes you would have to do with less if there were 600 million more mouths to feed in the US), so we can try and experiment using a method that hasn't proven itself in the entire history of this planet - ie, humans like animals will continue to have sex, and they won't be able to control themselves for the most part.

In fact here is a rather pathetic article, that shows the failure of the abstinence program, and the desperation of Ugandan's who are trying to live their lives (have sex like the rest of us) and not get Aids in the process. What are they doing? using trash bags as substitutes for the condoms they are no longer getting, largely because of Republican interference from groups like Focus on the Family.

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=30086