Difference between revisions of "Talk:Planned Parenthood"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Archiving time)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
[[Talk:Planned_Parenthood/Archive1]]
 +
 
== Moved from my talk page ==
 
== Moved from my talk page ==
  

Revision as of 22:16, 3 April 2007

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)