Difference between revisions of "Talk:Planned Parenthood"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Miscellaneous Reply)
(Remove: evil is still evil)
(48 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Biased, one-sided, of dubious accuracy, and a transparent attempt to demonise an organisation. Welcome to conservapedia. How can this site be expected to have any credability when all it offers is a distorted image of reality? I am surprised I do not see any accusations of deliberate genocide by Planned Par... oh, wait, there they are. My mistake. Now, how long before someone tries to compare them to a certian well-known dictator or his political party? - Suricou Raven.
+
"The suit said Goode, who didn't return to the clinic to have the dilators removed, had an infection and the dilators became a conduit, spreading it throughout her body......Planned Parenthood mailed two letters to Goode stating the dilators needed to be taken out" (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/348/story/73861.html-Associated Press 6/21/07).  
  
I'm new at creating articles so any help would be great thanks.
+
Edrica Goode did not follow doctor's instructions, and this is not the fault of the Planned Parenthood organization. The mother in this case Aletheia Meloncon is looking to place blame on someone for her daughter's lack of personal responsibility and her personal choices.  
  
:Thanks, Kathryn. I'm going to "move" your article to [[Planned Parenthood]] with the 2nd P capitalized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
+
This is another failed attempt by abortion opponents to strike up propaganda and fear in the media to guide women away from choosing to have an abortion. As with any other form of surgery or medical procedure there are risks, especially if you are not responsible and do not follow doctors orders.
  
 +
If your going to state facts, please state them truthfully!
 +
  
Thanks. I thought I'd have more time to work on this page but not untill tommorow. So it will be short for now I guess.
 
  
  
"Planned Parenthood vigorously opposes abstinence" -- Their website lists "continuous abstinence" as a form of birth control, with a long discussion of its pros and possible problems.  It is in fact the first method listed.  http://plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm
 
  
"They profit from [[abortion]]" -- They're a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.  Is it accurate to say they 'profit' from anything at all? [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 
  
  
Article is starting out very bias. It is too anti-planned parenting and since it has no sitations I am removing that part of the article and anyone who can help by contributing usefull information that is not bias would be lovely. Thanks :) ~  And also I am unsure how to make citations or whatever so im just adding links as subscripts and hopefully someone can help me out thanks
 
  
:Can there be some balance in this article? I think I've seen ''provides maternal and reproductive health-care to women and couples'' entered and romoved multiple times.
+
[[Talk:Planned_Parenthood/Archive1]]
  
:The issue seems to be:
+
== Moved from my talk page ==
:*Is PP only about abortions and contraceptives - i.e., '''preventing''' pregnancy and childbirth?
+
:*Or is it a significant provider of pregnancy and childbirth '''support'''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
+
  
 +
I raised the point that the [[Planned Parenthood]] article doesn't address the good things PP does.  It's above, in the "terrorism" section.  I consider that unresolved.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 20:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  
Sorry, I keep trying to make the article but Bananaman keeps erasing it just to say they preform abortions. It's getting annoying and it'd be lovely if someone could ban them or something so I could complete this article to be completely unbias and not lacking any important information.
+
:May I suggest that you post a list on my user talk page of the 5 or 10 most important good things which [[Planned Parenthood]] does? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  
::I'm sorry that you disagree with me Karyn, but Planned Parenthood is clearly in the busines of performing abortions, funding abortions, promoting abortions as birth control, and using abortion as population control.   Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that your views aren't wrong.   You can take your liberal agenda to WIkipedia, where they support such 'freedom of speech'.   --[[User:Bananaman|Bananaman]] 23:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
+
: Replying to Ames, those exams are a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does, and it is not how it makes its money. Abortion is its money-maker. If you can support your claim in a meaningful way, then it could be added ''after'' the central activity of Planned Parenthood is explained.  One doesn't emphasize that a tobacco company supports the arts without first explaining in detail how it profits from selling deadly cigarettes, targeting and addicting teenagers, exporting the stuff, etc. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  
  
No, actualy it's not. Just because you say it is doesn't mean it's so. Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides reproductive health care and preforms abortions as a last resort type thing. I am not being controversal. I am making a simple clean article. And just because you want be all weird about it is not my problem. Everyone deserves the right to know the truth, and saying planned parenthood ONLY does abortions and does it to be evil is just not right. The article is clean, short and to the point.
+
For the vast majority of people who PP interacts with, their interactions are defined by well-care, not abortions. But, conceding the point ''arguendo'', if you think that the majority of an industry's actions should be viewed primarily, perhaps you agree that science should be treated the same way, with "mainstream" science portrayed first, and "creationistarianism," or whatever they call it these days, should be portrayed second.  After all, you wouldn't want to insinuate that a group's minority dominated its perspective. Agreed?<br/>
 +
Anyways, though, the modern PP is much more of a sexual health advocacy group, [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/press-releases-5593.htm as seen here], most of their issues relate to sexual education et al, not abortion. I'm sure you have statistics to the contrary. Let's see them!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 20:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  
P.S. My names Kathryn :) Not karyn. ~
 
  
:::I don't ban so quickly as that. You two try to work this out, please. Here is the problematic stuff:
 
  
::::Planned Parenthood provides maternal and reproductive health-care to women and couples. They are an international non profit organization that is committed to providing low coast health care. Planned Parenthood offers high-quality health care. [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are.htm] They promote abstinence as the only sure way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but also provide birth control. [http://plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm] Planned Parenthood Federation of America states that all individuals should have the freedom to make reproductive decisions.They believe that the freedom to make reproductive decisions involves the right to privacy, especially in relationships; the right to education and that every individual should be able to make a informed decisions about sexuality and reproduction; and the right to nondiscriminatory access to comprehensive and confidential healthcare. [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission-and-policy-statements.htm]
+
:Ames, mainstream science should not get a pass. It makes special claims which religions do not. Science not only claims to have 'the truth' (which each religion generally does, even on matters where it contradicts all other religions) - but it claims to do so in an intersubjectively accessible manner. That is, it freely submits all its claims to confirmation by others. The reproducibility of results is key. And [[falsifiability]] is another. It's like that Denzel Washington sub thriller, where it takes two officers' keys to open the same to get the missile launch codes.
  
:::I'm sure a balanced article can come out of this. Let me know if you need help. I'll check back in a day or two. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:Where mainstream science fails -- and we all fail sometimes ("No one is perfect, no not one; all fall short ...") -- is when it stops allowing its findings to be scrutinized (see {{wp|scientific_data_witholding}} quick, before they delete it) and refuses to submit to any test capable of disproving the theory. The latter two points are hallmarks of [[Pseudoscience]], and no one likes the 'annoying revealer' unless they have enough sanity to be "dedicated to reality at all costs" ([[M. Scott Peck]]).
  
 +
:Religion is based on faith and revelation, and therefore need not subject itself to scrutiny. To be polite, we should not run other people's religion through a wringer, especially if we're not willing to let our own political, social or scientific notions suffer the same scrutiny.
  
Okay this article keeps getting switched and moved around. I can't tell whats going on. But really, I used no foul language, nothing innapropriate and kept it short and simple. It's not like I wrote stuff like OMG EVERYONE GET AN ABORTION YAY or something, no. I didn't. The article is unbiased. I am neither for or against planned parenting. I'm neutral. I don't know why everyone thinks im evil for writing this article or something, but frankly you guys call wikipedia 'biased' but atleast they provide the truth on subects. I'm simply trying to help out here by providing a neutral view on the subject by creating a clean and short article.
+
:In comparisons between science and religion, the [[burden of proof]] is on science, because of its special claim as mentioned above. Scienece says, "We have proved this". Religion humbly and meekly says, "Here is what we believe."
  
 +
::Right... but surely you agree, based on the separate burdens of proof, that religious faith should not substitute for scientific proof.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  
==Typo==
+
:: When someone presents their faith as science, they are allowing it to be rung through the ringer and also need to meet the requirements of falsifiability and reproducibility.  There is nothing wrong with saying "This is what the Bible says and I believe that".  However to say "This is what the Bible says and science is wrong because it doesn't match that" is implicitly subjecting that faith and revelation to the same standards as is demanded on science.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  
Changing the subject of the discussion page, what exactly is low "coast" health care?[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 01:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
== Better, but very bias ==
:Brilliance. Since the world is getting warmer the oceans will rise and the coasts will  become "lower", [[User:Conservative]] is just ahead of the game.
+
  
== Structure ==
+
This article is too anti-planned parenthood. It focused only on negative things and needs to be fixed. Thanks.
  
Sanger was crazy.  Known fact.  No-one today favors eugenics, not [[Planned Parenthood]], not anyone.  As such, to prevent such an inflammatory statement from being made, I restructured the latter half of the article.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
: Oh, please note that I have deleted no citations, even the ones I think are abominable.  This was a neutral edit, and I hope it will be treated as such.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
That edit was all context, and important for your readers.  Debate it here before you revert it!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:Another of Conservative's pet projects, protected & biased, here we come.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::Oh, whoops, sorry, was that me who despite protection changed it back to something a little less...inflammatory and biased? Sorry.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 01:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
  
== Problem with First Paragraph ==
+
Request that the quotes section be removed. This article is about Planned Parenthood, NOT Margaret Sanger. Therefore, having a bunch of random quotes that make her look like an idiot are NOT needed. What's the point? Is this telling us anything usefull or educational about Planned Parenthood? No, it is making the article look like crap.
  
An organization's own materials are not authority for self-serving claims it makes about itself.  This entry is in a revert war so it may not be clear exactly what I'm talking about, but the versions that repeatedly cite to the organization's own self-serving claims are inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  We are to be more objective than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
== Logical fallacy alert ==
  
== Unsourced statements being allowed by Sysop NSmyth ==
+
''Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 was 42.7% of its total abortions. However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.''
  
Unsourced statements are being allowed by Sysop NSmyth. Why are you saying that the present organization is not racist. Where is your proof?  Where are the sources? 
+
This is confusing correlation with causation. Minorities are mostly poor, and most abortions are by the poor. Therefor this particular paragraph is pretty much meaningless in the context. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  
I suggest reading:  
+
== The [[user:Conservative]]-ing of this article ==
  
[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40023 Planned Parenthood charged with racism] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
+
'''''Hallmarks of [[user:Conservative|Conservative's]] Edits'''''
:I'm still trying to find the part of the article that denies racism. The article seems to neither confirm or deny racism, but I occasionally miss subtle things like that. Point it out for me and I'll gladly look for a source, if I can't find one, I'll remove that line in the article.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 02:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)... I'm also good at missing obvious links in talk pages when I'm tired heh. Put that in.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]
+
# Text consisting largely block quotes with little analysis.
 +
# Poor, confusing structure, resulting from lack of analysis and excessive division.
 +
# Aggressive section titling.
 +
# One-sided citation of authority with no balancing viewpoint.
 +
# Protected Article.
 +
Remind you of anything, dear reader?  I think we all know whose article this is now, and why that's bad.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  
:::Please look at my present version and see if everything is supported. Also, I am building a case through more and more research. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
+
::AmesG regarding the veracity of one of his edits: "I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight. Just like how you approach science, [[user:Conservative|Conservative]].-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Answers_in_Genesis]
  
::::Conservative, for probably the first time since I first noticed your edits, I am in agreement with you. I'm perfectly happy with your work on the article at this point.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 07:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::Are you trying to pick a fight again AmesG? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
  
==External Links==
+
== George Grant quote ==
Here a couple of external links:
+
*[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ Planned Parenthood Federation of America]
+
*[http://www.all.org/stopp/plan.htm American Life League presents STOPP International] <br>Since the article is protected, please add them. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 02:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
  
== Sources ==
+
Quote:
  
Dear [[User:Conservative]]:
+
"Throughout the 200+ pages of this book Sanger called for the
 +
elimination of "human weeds," for the cessation of charity, for the
 +
segregation of "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the
 +
sterilization of "genetically inferior races."[4]...
  
Missionaries to Preborn cites numerous sources. You do not know what those sources say. Go to the library, look them up, make sure they're accurate.  Missionaries to Preborn is not a scholarly or journalistic organization.  You know absolutely nothing about the level of rigor they used in researching what amounts to be an opinion piece.  Likewise, the citizens review online site has copied an article whole hog from Concerned Women for America. That link is dead. Makes it tricky to verify the process doesn't it?  The Muse website requires registration.  World Net Daily is, sadly, your most reliable source. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
4. Grant, George. Grand Illusions
 +
(Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), p. 55."
  
Further.... Conservative, is it even possible for you to work on an article without locking it?  '''THIS IS A WIKI!''' [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
From: http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pp04a.txt
:::I have checked several statements in regards to the article you cited and they checked out. Again, which statement is in error? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
+
  
Ok, I'm not going to try and start any fights here. I said some of these sources are uncredible, and I am going to back up what I said. However, I want to apologize for what I did early, I should have given you a reason.
+
George Grant Footnote: Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilizations (New York: Brentano's, 1922), page 264.
  
# Missionariestopreborn, first off, uses picture of aborted fetuses, which I feel not only is unethical, but an abomination under God. Secondly, as myk said above, the article is using other sources, we should be using THOSE sources, and not the "missionariestopreborn" page.
+
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
# Citzen'sreview seems more credible, I still purport that perhaps we should be using the orginal material, I also wish that the original article could be accessed an not this hosted version.
+
# The Muse page seems well done, and is attached to a scholarly journal.
+
# The Eternal World Television has an obvious bias, and many statements in the article are quotes out of context, seen here. [http://web.archive.org/web/20060426020211/www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml]
+
  
"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." [4]
+
I fail to see how that quote is relevant to '''Planned Parenthood'''. This is an entry on PP, not Sanger. If you want to talk about Sanger, do it on her entry, I can't argue with that. But to discredit an organization simply by attacking its founder borders on an ad hominem attack. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 17:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
::: See the introduction to the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
  
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." [5]  
+
: I fear for what would be written on a hypothetical Britapedia if the same was to be applied there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:11, 5 April
 +
:::See the quote regarding poor people.  see the data which suggest they targeting of minorities according to the news organization . etc etc etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative2007 (EDT)
  
Both of these quotes are examples of quote mining or mis context of the quote. In the first quote, we can see that she is being Ironic when we look at the context. In the second quote, when we look at the full quote, we see that she doesn't want the word to get out because it would be a misconception.
+
:I believe at the time she would have spoken it, the word "moron" was an actual medical term, not the pejorative it is today.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 17:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  
 +
I'm sorry, I forgot, Conservative. This is "your" article now so I should expect plenty of out-of-context quotes and irrelevant information. My bad; carry on. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 17:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
::::::::<small>Colin! sshhhh... sarcasm bad. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)</small>
  
# WorldNetDaily has an obvious bias and the site is riddled with fake ads about energy pills and the like. Pertaining to the actual article, I do not know whether or not it is what it purports to be, but it is obvious that it is not from a NPOV.
+
::Colin, Show me what quotes are out of context.  Please don't claim without demonstrating. Secondly, how is the census data which strongly suggest they target minorities according to the news organization irrelevant? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
# LifeSite, this site appears much more credible, I have no problems with this site.
+
:::"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." is taken out of context. Read what she's actually arguing there. While I may not agree with her, it's not the oh so horrible statement you portray it to be. Secondly, I never said anything about census data; getting a little defensive are we? <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 17:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
::::Colin, you should be a spokesman for Planned Parenthood.  You could present her arguments for her indefensible statements and you could personally pass out the Margaret Sanger awards each year. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
 +
:::::Thank you for you ad hominem attack. I will take that to mean you have no real argument against what I said and are resorting to your typical way of handling things. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 17:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  
--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
== Remove ==
  
 +
Remove the quotes section. It's stupid and has nothing to do with planned parenthood. It makes the article look all evil and dumb. Just because someone might be all OMG PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS EBIL1111 doesn't mean you should screw up an article to make it biased. This article is about PLANNED PARENTHOOD, not the lady who founded it. If you want to have a section of nonsense talky-talk go make your own article on the lady and write whatever nonsene you want. But whoever is protecting this article, I kindly request you remove that section.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  
Forums should not be cited as sources, because anybody can post anything on there. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
  
:What forums?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
God damnit what the hell is taking so long stop ignoring me! alteast respond with a no instead of just ignoring me! xK
  
::::I did further research to bolster my racism/Sanger claim.  Please see additional quotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
+
[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  
== current research ==
+
:Ann Coulter said that Planned Parenthood is using "health care" as a euphemism for "abortion". There are not a "healthcare provider" in the general sense. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  
"George Grant points out in his history of Planned Parenthood, Grand Illusions (1988), Sanger devoted the entire April 1933 issue of Birth Control Review to eugenics. One of the articles, "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need," was written by Ernst Rudin, Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene." [http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/american-spectator_eugenics.html]
+
::Depends on what you mean by health care...yes they provide abortion resources, but also contraception, STD treatment and counseling, etc. If abortion is outlawed, they would still have much to provide.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 19:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  
'''*OK... right there. You quoted The American Spectator but where it was sourced on an MIT host. ''The source is not MIT, it is the American Spectator.'' And... it's not even the American Spectator!  it's about a book, Grand Illusions.  Have you read this book? You're quoting a website, quoting an opinion piece in a magazine which is discussing a book which talks about a magazine from 1933. Throw Kevin Bacon in there and you have a fun little party game. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)'''
+
You should probably remove the quote that says something along the lines of "Planned Parenthood promotes the use of pornography to attain sexual pleasure." Honestly, you cannot, I repeat, CANNOT prevent people from having sex/masturbating. With this in mind, would you rather a kid pleasures himself to pornography, or engage in intercourse, possibly leading to an unplanned birth, which would only increase the population.
  
"During the 1930s Margaret Sanger published The Birth Control Review, in which she openly supported Nazi Germany's "infanticide program" in the 1930s, and publicly championed Adolf Hitler's goal of Aryan white supremacy. Prior to World War II she commissioned Nazi Ernst Rudin, director of the dreaded German medical experimentation programs, to serve as an advisor to her organization." [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a380249a34016.htm]
+
:::Ah, the "lesser of two evils" argument--evil is still evil though. From a human standpoint what you said might be true.  However, those who look to and believe in God find "impossible" to be a relative term. See: Matthew 19:26  --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 10:18, 21 November 2017 (EST)
  
'In 1939, Margaret Sanger organized the Negro Project, designed to eliminate members of what she believed to be an "inferior race." She justified her proposal because "the masses of Negroes... particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit..."3" [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a380249a34016.htm]
+
==FBI==
 +
From the Spectator:
  
==MUST==
+
Targeting Pro-Lifers. In 2010, The FBI held a joint training session on terrorism with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. The main message of the seminar was that all pro-lifers are potential terrorists, an outrageous allegation. Indeed, material passed out by the pro-aborts at the seminar listed three pages of “anti-abortion websites,” including those of National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, the American Center for Law and Justice, and Human Life International. None of those groups advocate violence. This is another example of how the FBI allows itself to be used by the left to go after its enemies. Similarly, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, the FBI created a project called VAAPCON to create files on pro-life religious leaders such as Rev. Jerry Falwell. Indeed, Judicial Watch, representing Falwell, sued the Clinton White House, seeking info on the project, but all the files mysteriously disappeared, Clinton style.
You lock '''''every''''' article you edit [[User:Conservative| Conservative]]? [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub>
+
:I have a source:http://www.interlife.org/woman.html Feel free to use it. It's the actual online version of the book that was quoted by the misionariestothepreborn.org site. It's a '''Primary''' source, which ought to be used if available, which, as you can plainly see, it is. Thank you. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 09:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
  
==Misattributed Quotes==
+
https://spectator.org/should-the-fbi-be-abolished/ [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:06, 21 November 2017 (EST)
Not surprisingly, Conservative, you have false information in your article. The second quote you have attruibuted to Sanger ("The mass of ignorant Negroes") was actually said by W.E.B. DuBois in the June 1932 issue of ''Birth Control Review''--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Actually, most of the quotes in the article are examples of quote mining, mis-attributed quotes, or quotes out of context.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
::I know. Misleading quotes and Conservative are the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of Conservapedia; they just go together.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:15, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::We were all wrong about that quote:  "the mass of signficant Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit and least able to rear children properly."<ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/00147354/di975884/97p14282/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf34@buffalo.edu/01cce4406300501bbf062&dpi=3&config=jstor</ref> (Margaret Sanger - The "Negro Project" quoting W.E.B. Dubious with the omission of one word)  I do thank you though and I was intending to double check that quote when I back from my appointment and then I saw your message.
+
 
+
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
+
 
+
:Conservative, I would ask that you either use the full quote from Sanger in reqards to exterminating Negros and ministers, as I puts the quote into context.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:18, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
Specifically, this is the full text.
+
 
+
“It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County’s white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.
+
 
+
The minister’s work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. '''We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs.'''”
+
 
+
The bolded part is the only part in the article and misrepresents the quote.
+
 
+
--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::I guess the "our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach" is rather vague.  So I will delete the quote unless greater context shows its valid. 17:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
+
::::Thank You!--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:33, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Represent the Good Side (posted on Andy's wall, too) ==
+
 
+
I think the articles gives too little credit for good things that Planned Parenthood does. I have many friends (who have never had sex) who use Planned Parenthood for cheaper birth control pills, to regulate their hormones and control what would otherwise be excruciatingly painful cycles, if you know what I mean. They also use Planned Parenthood for annual gynecological exams at a discounted rate, since having a private practice doctor do the same exam is significantly more expensive. I think we can disagree about abortions, but I think women's health is an absolute positive, and something that Planned Parenthood does well. The article should say so.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 10:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:The argument that would be made here is that the only reason the health-care and medicines are so cheap is that the abortions performed at PP subsidize everything else. In other words, a woman gets "gynecological exams at a discounted rate" because she's getting them at the expense of dead babies. In other ''other'' words there is no good at Planned Parenthood only ''less bad'' things. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 10:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::If health care was cheaper in America, women wouldn't have to get cheaper health care at the "expense of dead babies". Personally, I'm all for planned parenthood(notice the lack of capitalization, I'm talking about the idea, not the organization), and I definitly like the idea of health care being more available to women. I don't believe in forcing others to believe what I believe, so I'm pro-choice. If a woman gets an abortion, it doesn't bother me, it doesn't effect me(in any way shape or form, try to tell me that God will smite me because I say this, I do believe the bible says to leave the judgement up to him, that's exactly what I'm doing). I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not my decision, and it's not anyone else's either. The choice about whether or not having an abortion is right lies with the mother and the father of the unborn child, and only them. I apologize for the semi-rant.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 12:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::Don't apologize - it's one of the most lucid, rational things anyone has said here.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Interesting ==
+
 
+
Interesting article, but it really should be  named something like "controversial historical issues in PP" given that most of the content has absolutely nothing to do with the modern organization.  I have a decent amount of contact with them, and their current organization is completely misrepresented here.  It really is a travesty, but I'm not the one to fix it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 10:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Indeed.  Conservative, out of curiosity, do you genuinely believe that PP has more facilities in "ethnic schools" (as you called them) or neighborhoods as part of a strategy to reduce the number of minorities in the US?  Besides the larger POV issue, this entry is not well written. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Advocacy==
+
 
+
PP does not simply "provide health services". It has positions and asserts them loudly.
+
 
+
Here is an example:
+
 
+
"Throughout the year, the federal government steps up its war on women and freedom of choice ... " [snip by Ed Poor for CP discussion]
+
 
+
* The U.S. State Department freezes $3 million in funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to anti-choice objections to the WHO's Human Reproduction Program; HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer; the HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects;" and "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden is named to oversee Title X, the nation's family planning program. [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/2000-present-9929.htm]
+
 
+
This implies that they strongly oppose abstinence - a point 'fact-tagged' in the article recently. They use this bullet point as 'ammunition' in the 'war' over "women and freedom of choice".
+
 
+
This implies that they favor the POV of the United Nations, as the WHO is completely under UN control.
+
 
+
This accuses HHS of removing "medically accurate information about condom effectiveness", whatever that means. Looks like they advocate condom use for something - is it [[contraception]] and/or [[VD prevention]]? (Sorry about the archaic language, I don't think I'll ever make the switch to 'STD' - sounds like an oil additive.)
+
 
+
This asserts that there is no "proven link between abortion and breast cancer".
+
 
+
A whole bunch of interesting points to keep us busy in coming weeks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
:There's an enormous difference between opposing abstinence and opposing abstinence-only sex ed. Are you sure they're referring to the former? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
::It seems pretty clear that their opposition is to abstinence ''only'' sex ed. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 12:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::Tsumetai, no, I'm not sure. That's what these discussion pages are for.
+
 
+
:::But I'm also not sure whether there's much difference between (1) opposing abstinence and (2) saying "abstinence would be better, but we don't really think you are capable of it, and since you're going to fornicate anyway, try (blank)". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::::It's closer to saying, "abstinence would be betterm but if you don't believe in the same things we do, and feel that you must fornicate, use (insert method of birth control here) in order to help keep yourselves from getting STIs and from becoming parents at such a young age."[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 12:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::I think there's a big difference between the 2.  And I suspect the attitude is more "here are some things you should know if you choose to have sex" rather than "because we don't think you can help yourselves."  [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 12:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
Ed, im not that younger than you, but no one uses VD anymore...get with the times man! Anyway, like I said, I work with them a lot, they have nothing against abstinence, just education that excludes things other than abstinence.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
And btw, to repost the link above, I really think that should clear things up, but what do I know...
+
http://plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm  [[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 12:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
And, BTW, I think it is reasonable to debate the racism issue, but it is not a "done deal".  Poor minority communities have less access to health care in general, and PP does provide needed services.  I do not think their primary motivation is racist, however, it is an interesting point to discuss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 12:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
:What I would like to see is a correlation being drawn. It is not enough to say "African-American communities have more Planned Parenthood operations, thus Planned Parenthood is trying to exterminate African-Americans." If I were to write that in a research essay, I think my stats professor would shoot me.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
== aborted babies pic source - I found substitute links.  Problem solved  ==
+
 
+
aborted babies pic source - I found substitute links.  Problem solved [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
+
 
+
:Thank you Conservative! I really appreciate that!--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Miscellaneous Reply ==
+
 
+
Thanks for the good discussion above.  I would like to respond to a few points here:
+
 
+
* It's true, of course, that Planned Parenthood is a "non-profit" business so use of the word "profit" is problematic.  But it is a huge business and the biggest provider of abortions in the United States.  It makes a large excess of revenue over expenses, which we ordinarily call "profit".  It is not a charity in the same sense as, for example, a church.  Those "profits" of Planned Parenthood accrue to the benefit of its employees, its consultants, its allies and its doctors.
+
 
+
* Only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood's services provide needed medical care to poor communities.
+
 
+
* Planned Parenthood does target minority areas with advertisements for abortion that might be considered to be deceptive.  I won't say that these advertisements are racist in intent, but they do have a disparate racial effect.
+
 
+
* Virtually every woman who has an abortion is worse off in terms of her health.  Childbirth is good for the health of the mother, and no one disputes that.  Abortion has been linked to breast cancer (nearly every study has found a link, see [[abortion]]) and also to devastating premature birth (see also [[abortion]]).
+
 
+
* Due in large part to Planned Parenthood's aggressive marketing in minority communities, African Americans have three times the abortion rate of whites, and three times the rate of premature births and associated devastating injuries.  (I'm not sure how the breast cancer rate compares between African American and white women, but maybe someone else knows this.)
+
 
+
I'm not asking for specific changes to the content page, but it seems to me a skeptical look at what Planned Parenthood really does to make its millions of dollars is appropriate.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+
 
+
:: Andy, for the record, on the "abortion & cancer" stuff, the stats are correlated but causation is not implied, and any credible scientist would find that.  I bet people who read this site are more likely than a carefully selected and retooled focus group to get breast cancer, too.  Second, you should tell the mothers who died throughout history in childbirth that it's "good" for their health.  Third, even if it is better for the health of the mother, it's not your call to force, in a paternalistic manner that most conservatives are opposed to, health decisions down their throat.  Fourth, I think your use of "disparate impact" and "intent" rhetoric is insulting to constitutional law and misleading.  However, let's jump on it to say that disparate impact never proves intent in modern constitutional law (cf. ''McClesky''), so you should remove any language from the article that insinuates a discriminatory intent.  Fifth, I thank God every day that I do not live in an America controlled by people like you.  No offense intended, but this country is better for it.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 18:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
+

Revision as of 10:18, 21 November 2017

"The suit said Goode, who didn't return to the clinic to have the dilators removed, had an infection and the dilators became a conduit, spreading it throughout her body......Planned Parenthood mailed two letters to Goode stating the dilators needed to be taken out" (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/348/story/73861.html-Associated Press 6/21/07).

Edrica Goode did not follow doctor's instructions, and this is not the fault of the Planned Parenthood organization. The mother in this case Aletheia Meloncon is looking to place blame on someone for her daughter's lack of personal responsibility and her personal choices.

This is another failed attempt by abortion opponents to strike up propaganda and fear in the media to guide women away from choosing to have an abortion. As with any other form of surgery or medical procedure there are risks, especially if you are not responsible and do not follow doctors orders.

If your going to state facts, please state them truthfully!





Talk:Planned_Parenthood/Archive1

Moved from my talk page

I raised the point that the Planned Parenthood article doesn't address the good things PP does. It's above, in the "terrorism" section. I consider that unresolved.-AmesGyo! 20:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

May I suggest that you post a list on my user talk page of the 5 or 10 most important good things which Planned Parenthood does? --Ed Poor 20:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Replying to Ames, those exams are a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does, and it is not how it makes its money. Abortion is its money-maker. If you can support your claim in a meaningful way, then it could be added after the central activity of Planned Parenthood is explained. One doesn't emphasize that a tobacco company supports the arts without first explaining in detail how it profits from selling deadly cigarettes, targeting and addicting teenagers, exporting the stuff, etc. Agreed?--Aschlafly 20:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


For the vast majority of people who PP interacts with, their interactions are defined by well-care, not abortions. But, conceding the point arguendo, if you think that the majority of an industry's actions should be viewed primarily, perhaps you agree that science should be treated the same way, with "mainstream" science portrayed first, and "creationistarianism," or whatever they call it these days, should be portrayed second. After all, you wouldn't want to insinuate that a group's minority dominated its perspective. Agreed?
Anyways, though, the modern PP is much more of a sexual health advocacy group, as seen here, most of their issues relate to sexual education et al, not abortion. I'm sure you have statistics to the contrary. Let's see them!-AmesGyo! 20:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


Ames, mainstream science should not get a pass. It makes special claims which religions do not. Science not only claims to have 'the truth' (which each religion generally does, even on matters where it contradicts all other religions) - but it claims to do so in an intersubjectively accessible manner. That is, it freely submits all its claims to confirmation by others. The reproducibility of results is key. And falsifiability is another. It's like that Denzel Washington sub thriller, where it takes two officers' keys to open the same to get the missile launch codes.
Where mainstream science fails -- and we all fail sometimes ("No one is perfect, no not one; all fall short ...") -- is when it stops allowing its findings to be scrutinized (see scientific_data_witholding quick, before they delete it) and refuses to submit to any test capable of disproving the theory. The latter two points are hallmarks of Pseudoscience, and no one likes the 'annoying revealer' unless they have enough sanity to be "dedicated to reality at all costs" (M. Scott Peck).
Religion is based on faith and revelation, and therefore need not subject itself to scrutiny. To be polite, we should not run other people's religion through a wringer, especially if we're not willing to let our own political, social or scientific notions suffer the same scrutiny.
In comparisons between science and religion, the burden of proof is on science, because of its special claim as mentioned above. Scienece says, "We have proved this". Religion humbly and meekly says, "Here is what we believe."
Right... but surely you agree, based on the separate burdens of proof, that religious faith should not substitute for scientific proof.-AmesGyo! 21:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
When someone presents their faith as science, they are allowing it to be rung through the ringer and also need to meet the requirements of falsifiability and reproducibility. There is nothing wrong with saying "This is what the Bible says and I believe that". However to say "This is what the Bible says and science is wrong because it doesn't match that" is implicitly subjecting that faith and revelation to the same standards as is demanded on science. --Mtur 21:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Better, but very bias

This article is too anti-planned parenthood. It focused only on negative things and needs to be fixed. Thanks.


Request that the quotes section be removed. This article is about Planned Parenthood, NOT Margaret Sanger. Therefore, having a bunch of random quotes that make her look like an idiot are NOT needed. What's the point? Is this telling us anything usefull or educational about Planned Parenthood? No, it is making the article look like crap.

Logical fallacy alert

Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 was 42.7% of its total abortions. However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.

This is confusing correlation with causation. Minorities are mostly poor, and most abortions are by the poor. Therefor this particular paragraph is pretty much meaningless in the context. Nematocyte 08:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

The user:Conservative-ing of this article

Hallmarks of Conservative's Edits

  1. Text consisting largely block quotes with little analysis.
  2. Poor, confusing structure, resulting from lack of analysis and excessive division.
  3. Aggressive section titling.
  4. One-sided citation of authority with no balancing viewpoint.
  5. Protected Article.

Remind you of anything, dear reader? I think we all know whose article this is now, and why that's bad.-AmesGyo! 23:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG regarding the veracity of one of his edits: "I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight. Just like how you approach science, Conservative.-AmesGyo! 01:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)[1]
Are you trying to pick a fight again AmesG? Conservative 17:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

George Grant quote

Quote:

"Throughout the 200+ pages of this book Sanger called for the elimination of "human weeds," for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races."[4]...

4. Grant, George. Grand Illusions (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), p. 55."

From: http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pp04a.txt

George Grant Footnote: Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilizations (New York: Brentano's, 1922), page 264.

Conservative 17:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I fail to see how that quote is relevant to Planned Parenthood. This is an entry on PP, not Sanger. If you want to talk about Sanger, do it on her entry, I can't argue with that. But to discredit an organization simply by attacking its founder borders on an ad hominem attack. ColinRtalk 17:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

See the introduction to the article. Conservative 17:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
I fear for what would be written on a hypothetical Britapedia if the same was to be applied there. --Mtur 17:11, 5 April
See the quote regarding poor people. see the data which suggest they targeting of minorities according to the news organization . etc etc etc. Conservative 17:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative2007 (EDT)
I believe at the time she would have spoken it, the word "moron" was an actual medical term, not the pejorative it is today. Crackertalk 17:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I forgot, Conservative. This is "your" article now so I should expect plenty of out-of-context quotes and irrelevant information. My bad; carry on. ColinRtalk 17:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Colin! sshhhh... sarcasm bad. Myk 17:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Colin, Show me what quotes are out of context. Please don't claim without demonstrating. Secondly, how is the census data which strongly suggest they target minorities according to the news organization irrelevant? Conservative 17:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." is taken out of context. Read what she's actually arguing there. While I may not agree with her, it's not the oh so horrible statement you portray it to be. Secondly, I never said anything about census data; getting a little defensive are we? ColinRtalk 17:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Colin, you should be a spokesman for Planned Parenthood. You could present her arguments for her indefensible statements and you could personally pass out the Margaret Sanger awards each year. Conservative 17:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Thank you for you ad hominem attack. I will take that to mean you have no real argument against what I said and are resorting to your typical way of handling things. ColinRtalk 17:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Remove

Remove the quotes section. It's stupid and has nothing to do with planned parenthood. It makes the article look all evil and dumb. Just because someone might be all OMG PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS EBIL1111 doesn't mean you should screw up an article to make it biased. This article is about PLANNED PARENTHOOD, not the lady who founded it. If you want to have a section of nonsense talky-talk go make your own article on the lady and write whatever nonsene you want. But whoever is protecting this article, I kindly request you remove that section.AtheistKathryn 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


God damnit what the hell is taking so long stop ignoring me! alteast respond with a no instead of just ignoring me! xK

AtheistKathryn 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Ann Coulter said that Planned Parenthood is using "health care" as a euphemism for "abortion". There are not a "healthcare provider" in the general sense. --Ed Poor 19:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Depends on what you mean by health care...yes they provide abortion resources, but also contraception, STD treatment and counseling, etc. If abortion is outlawed, they would still have much to provide.Livingston 19:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You should probably remove the quote that says something along the lines of "Planned Parenthood promotes the use of pornography to attain sexual pleasure." Honestly, you cannot, I repeat, CANNOT prevent people from having sex/masturbating. With this in mind, would you rather a kid pleasures himself to pornography, or engage in intercourse, possibly leading to an unplanned birth, which would only increase the population.

Ah, the "lesser of two evils" argument--evil is still evil though. From a human standpoint what you said might be true. However, those who look to and believe in God find "impossible" to be a relative term. See: Matthew 19:26 --David B (TALK) 10:18, 21 November 2017 (EST)

FBI

From the Spectator:

Targeting Pro-Lifers. In 2010, The FBI held a joint training session on terrorism with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. The main message of the seminar was that all pro-lifers are potential terrorists, an outrageous allegation. Indeed, material passed out by the pro-aborts at the seminar listed three pages of “anti-abortion websites,” including those of National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, the American Center for Law and Justice, and Human Life International. None of those groups advocate violence. This is another example of how the FBI allows itself to be used by the left to go after its enemies. Similarly, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, the FBI created a project called VAAPCON to create files on pro-life religious leaders such as Rev. Jerry Falwell. Indeed, Judicial Watch, representing Falwell, sued the Clinton White House, seeking info on the project, but all the files mysteriously disappeared, Clinton style.

https://spectator.org/should-the-fbi-be-abolished/ RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:06, 21 November 2017 (EST)