“They live out her racist vision”

[Cal_Catholic]

Covert investigation by UCLA students finds Planned Parenthood still wedded to founder’s bigoted views

Full article…

 

[rpp]

Nothing surprises me about PP.

They are an intrinsically evil organization.

 

[SoCalRC]

For what it is worth, here is the coverage from the Idaho Statesmen:

idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/308723.html

I’m not sure that it is terribly rational to use this as confirmation of the student’s theory. Notice the reporters characterization of the recording. Playing along with a seemingly crazy and stupid person simply to take their money is poor judgement and, I think, in of itself immoral. But it is quite a stretch to assume that a willingness to take money actually equates to acceptance of pretend beliefs.

Also, the LA Times was less than impressed. Apparently there is some question as to just how many calls had to be made to get any transcripts remotely embarrassing. And, there is some question as to rather the transcripts accurately reflect the tone and characters of the exchanges.

That is not to say that I have any love for PP. I just think that it is unfortunate that someone admitted to my AM would be so shakey in the area of critical thought. Think about it this way, if the the reporter had combed five states searching for inappropriate behavior from a member of the ordinary, history shows bad behavior could probably be found. But it is a big leap to say that the Church condones such conduct.

 

[mlchance]

While there may be good reason to question the methods of a relatively inexperienced, amateur journalist, this just made me chuckle:

Also, the LA Times was less than impressed.

Really? The stridently pro-abortion LA Times was less than impressed.

A link related to this topic: blackgenocide.org/

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[SoCalRC]

While there may be good reason to question the methods of a relatively inexperienced, amateur journalist, this just made me chuckle:

Really? The stridently pro-abortion LA Times was less than impressed.

A link related to this topic: blackgenocide.org/

– Mark L. Chance.

I think you are falling prey to the same sort of disassociated thinking. The ambitious student set out to create guilt by association. In order to ‘prove’ what was already believed, the student took large samplings, then cherry picked responses and presented them in a questionable form (in terms of objectivity).

When asked for complete data, the group balked. So, it isn’t journalism, regardless of how hard we try to change the subject to the people who asked for the data in the first place. That is, there is no desire to report anything but a desired result. If you need to supress facts that weaken your argument, you haven’t proven anything but your motive.

Even in the case in question, we are looking at a snippet of a 25 minute conversation. The bulk of the conversation appears to be the target trying to reiterate what the official policy is and attempts to redirect the conversation constructively. The portion released as audio (see the Idaho paper report) has nervous laughter, a confession that it is a unique experience, a recharacterization of a statement (“you can”… “to help”), then the comment of “understandable”.

There is no doubt that such a comment was regrettable, but how can we make an honest distinction between a glimpse of core beliefs and simple Christian charity? I have certainly tried to be patient with seemingly stupid and crazy people before. In doing so, I may well have used words of appeasement. If the target had started confessing her own beliefs, then I think an honest case could be made that she has some racist ones, but it still would be a stretch to claim that she reflects the beliefs of the organization.

The problem I have with this sort of stuff is that the only people who find it compelling are folks who consider themselves stridently pro-life already. Folks worth reaching, people who are generally decent but who may be confused about the proper moral prospect of life at the very edges of existance, often see it for what it is, dishonest and illogical.

Think about it, this is an argument of convenience. Eugenics was a highly popular movement at the beginning of the 20th century in the US. We wrote the pattern for the Nazi ethnic purity law. We performed sterilizations under state eugenics laws (which had previously stood up to a digustingly dishonest review by the Supreme Court) until the 1970s. But if I set out to prove that the Republican party was still pro-eugenics (look at the politicians openly and actively supporting it at the time, and the states that clung to it), by combing the country for a little good old fashioned racist hate speech from some registered Republicans or GOP politicians, people would be howling ‘Foul!’

We don’t need to cheat. We need to enlighten. We need to open hearts and minds. And we need to follow our Christian obligations and put ourselves in the service others. Reach out and offer alternatives. I think that thumping our chests, wagging our fingers, and calling other children of God “intrinsically evil” just makes us seem clueless, and not particularly Christian.

 

[mlchance]

I think you are falling prey to the same sort of disassociated thinking.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[po18guy]

Covert investigation by UCLA students finds Planned Parenthood still wedded to founder’s bigoted views

Full article…

Unlike the living unwanted, who can plead for their lives, it is easier to kill the unborn. It is still killing.

Lord, have mercy!

 

[Lorik]

The fact is that 35% of abortions in the US are performed on African Americans. While only 13% of the population are black women.
There has been approximately 14,625,000 African American babies aborted since 1973. More deaths than AIDS, crime, accidents, cancer and heart disease combined.
Abortion is evil. Racism is evil. I don’t see how it’s such a stretch to see the link. Especially given Margaret Sanger’s goal of eliminating the “undesirable races and classes”.
I applaud the UCLA students. The public needs to know the facts about racism and abortion.

 

[fix]

For what it is worth, here is the coverage from the Idaho Statesmen:

idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/308723.html

I’m not sure that it is terribly rational to use this as confirmation of the student’s theory. Notice the reporters characterization of the recording. Playing along with a seemingly crazy and stupid person simply to take their money is poor judgement and, I think, in of itself immoral. But it is quite a stretch to assume that a willingness to take money actually equates to acceptance of pretend beliefs.

Yea, so the group is not racist, then only push abortion.

Also, the LA Times was less than impressed. Apparently there is some question as to just how many calls had to be made to get any transcripts remotely embarrassing. And, there is some question as to rather the transcripts accurately reflect the tone and characters of the exchanges.

And those who question are unbiased?

That is not to say that I have any love for PP. I just think that it is unfortunate that someone admitted to my AM would be so shakey in the area of critical thought. Think about it this way, if the the reporter had combed five states searching for inappropriate behavior from a member of the ordinary, history shows bad behavior could probably be found. But it is a big leap to say that the Church condones such conduct.

What a strange and misplaced analogy.

 

[fix]

I think you are falling prey to the same sort of disassociated thinking. The ambitious student set out to create guilt by association.

He did? Where is that stated?

In order to ‘prove’ what was already believed, the student took large samplings, then cherry picked responses and presented them in a questionable form (in terms of objectivity).

Is this verified by an objective source?

When asked for complete data, the group balked. So, it isn’t journalism, regardless of how hard we try to change the subject to the people who asked for the data in the first place. That is, there is no desire to report anything but a desired result. If you need to supress facts that weaken your argument, you haven’t proven anything but your motive.

This is akin to saying one who investigates the KKK has a preconceived notion of what they believe.

Even in the case in question, we are looking at a snippet of a 25 minute conversation. The bulk of the conversation appears to be the target trying to reiterate what the official policy is and attempts to redirect the conversation constructively. The portion released as audio (see the Idaho paper report) has nervous laughter, a confession that it is a unique experience, a recharacterization of a statement (“you can”… “to help”), then the comment of “understandable”.

Why did the employee get into trouble then?

There is no doubt that such a comment was regrettable, but how can we make an honest distinction between a glimpse of core beliefs and simple Christian charity?

Charity is now endorsing abortion and racism?

I have certainly tried to be patient with seemingly stupid and crazy people before. In doing so, I may well have used words of appeasement. If the target had started confessing her own beliefs, then I think an honest case could be made that she has some racist ones, but it still would be a stretch to claim that she reflects the beliefs of the organization.

Then the employee acted well, by your standard.

The problem I have with this sort of stuff is that the only people who find it compelling are folks who consider themselves stridently pro-life already. Folks worth reaching, people who are generally decent but who may be confused about the proper moral prospect of life at the very edges of existance, often see it for what it is, dishonest and illogical.

Is decency now associated with direct abortion?

Think about it, this is an argument of convenience. Eugenics was a highly popular movement at the beginning of the 20th century in the US. We wrote the pattern for the Nazi ethnic purity law. We performed sterilizations under state eugenics laws (which had previously stood up to a digustingly dishonest review by the Supreme Court) until the 1970s. But if I set out to prove that the Republican party was still pro-eugenics (look at the politicians openly and actively supporting it at the time, and the states that clung to it), by combing the country for a little good old fashioned racist hate speech from some registered Republicans or GOP politicians, people would be howling ‘Foul!’

What does the Republican party have to do with PP?

We don’t need to cheat. We need to enlighten. We need to open hearts and minds. And we need to follow our Christian obligations and put ourselves in the service others. Reach out and offer alternatives. I think that thumping our chests, wagging our fingers, and calling other children of God “intrinsically evil” just makes us seem clueless, and not particularly Christian.

Calling another a cheater without proof of intent is hardly Christian.

 

[DL82]

This reminds me of a case recently in the UK where the Conservative Party accepted a £3m donation from an eccentric millionaire who was committed to a mental institution several years ago. He gave the money because he believed Mrs Thatcher was the only one who could save humanity from satanic alien invaders!

When the man’s children contested the will on the grounds that their father was clearly mad, the Conservatives fought the case in court! Clearly there are some people who will do anything to get a hold of money for their cause.