Difference between revisions of "Talk:Planned Parenthood"

Revision as of 10:13, April 2, 2007

I'm new at creating articles so any help would be great thanks.

Thanks, Kathryn. I'm going to "move" your article to Planned Parenthood with the 2nd P capitalized. --Ed Poor 20:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

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? 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.

The issue seems to be:

• Is PP only about abortions and contraceptives - i.e., preventing pregnancy and childbirth?
• Or is it a significant provider of pregnancy and childbirth support? --Ed Poor 23:10, 1 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.

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'. --Bananaman 23:14, 1 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.

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. [1] They promote abstinence as the only sure way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but also provide birth control. [2] 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. [3]

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. --Ed Poor 23:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

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.

Typo

Changing the subject of the discussion page, what exactly is low "coast" health care?NSmyth 01:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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.-AmesG_yo! 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.-AmesG_yo! 01:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That edit was all context, and important for your readers. Debate it here before you revert it!-AmesG_yo! 01:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Another of Conservative's pet projects, protected & biased, here we come.-AmesG_yo! 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.Nsmyth 01:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Problem with First Paragraph

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.--Aschlafly 01:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Unsourced statements being allowed by Sysop NSmyth

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?

I suggest reading:

Planned Parenthood charged with racism Conservative 01:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

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.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.NSmyth

Please look at my present version and see if everything is supported. Also, I am building a case through more and more research. Conservative 02:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

External Links

Here a couple of external links:

• Planned Parenthood Federation of America
• American Life League presents STOPP International
  Since the article is protected, please add them. Crocoite^talk 02:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sources

Dear User:Conservative:

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. Myk 03:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Further.... Conservative, is it even possible for you to work on an article without locking it? THIS IS A WIKI! Myk 03:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I have checked several statements in regards to the article you cited and they checked out. Again, which statement is in error? 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. The Muse page seems well done, and is attached to a scholarly journal.

1. The Eternal World Television has an obvious bias, and many statements in the article are quotes out of context, seen here. [4]

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." [4]

"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]

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.

1. 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.

1. LifeSite, this site appears much more credible, I have no problems with this site.

--Elamdri 03:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Forums should not be cited as sources, because anybody can post anything on there. MountainDew 03:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

What forums?--Elamdri 03:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I did further research to bolster my racism/Sanger claim. Please see additional quotes. Conservative 06:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

current research

"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." [5]

*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. Myk 03:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

"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." [6]

'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" [7]