Planned Parenthood for Blacks: "Humane" Alternative to Death Camps?

[JHow]

The second poster Blue 123 sidetracked this thread into a debate about life and conception, but in my view the article is about whether or not abortion and birth control as implemented and carried out by PP represent a distinct attack on the black population per se. That is, was the american pro-abortion movement motivated by an idea of “fewer blacks, the better”?

Certainly, historically, America has a poor track record when it comes to racial attitudes towards blacks. Certainly Margaret Sanger seems to have had ideas like this. Certainly the Ginsburg quote seems to suggest this. Certainly I used to hear guys like Jesse Jackson say stuff like this in the 1970s-80s, before re tried to really run for political office (when he was more Reverend than politician). And certainly, in my experience, PP seems to intentionally locate itself in poor neighborhoods (which in my neck of the woods are hispanic, but are likely black elsewhere). I’m sure PP will say they are trying to maximize “availability” of their “services” for poor women, but if your goal was to try and reduce the black population would the activity look any different? Put another way, if the Klan were to open a clinic, where do you think they would put it?

Also, I didn’t see “holocaust” (spelled with one ‘L’) mentioned in the article, but I could be wrong. I did see a reference to Hitler as being influenced by american eugenicists, which I think is accurate. None of the points made reach the level of comparing abortion to the holocaust in my view. The term genocide can be applied to events other than The Holocaust of the 30’s and 40’s.

 

[BlueShadow123]

My bad then. Ignore my post.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Actually OP the difference is only in the knowledge of what death is and not in anything else. prenatal humans can suffer. many studies show that one of the reasons drug babies are so small is because they purpously pinch off their umbical cord while the mother does drugs. no animal…even chimps…do this. During any prenatal surgery like those done to prevent fatal birth defects the child flinches when a scaple touches their skin…their heart rate returns to normal when they are placed back in the womb. Children who survive saline abortions are across the board terrified of fire. So while they may not be fully “enlightened” they certinally hav suffered a torture similar to the holocoust victims.

This is a good point, I have read about this. Its horrible, and while its true, they are two different things (holocaust and abortions), they do have similarities. Also, while some people were able to use their knowledge to escape concentration camps, unborn babies do not have that option. Either way, they are still both horrible examples of things that can occur when all life is not valued.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

The second poster Blue 123 sidetracked this thread into a debate about life and conception, but in my view the article is about whether or not abortion and birth control as implemented and carried out by PP represent a distinct attack on the black population per se. That is, was the american pro-abortion movement motivated by an idea of “fewer blacks, the better”?

Certainly, historically, America has a poor track record when it comes to racial attitudes towards blacks. Certainly Margaret Sanger seems to have had ideas like this. Certainly the Ginsburg quote seems to suggest this. Certainly I used to hear guys like Jesse Jackson say stuff like this in the 1970s-80s, before re tried to really run for political office (when he was more Reverend than politician). And certainly, in my experience, PP seems to intentionally locate itself in poor neighborhoods (which in my neck of the woods are hispanic, but are likely black elsewhere). I’m sure PP will say they are trying to maximize “availability” of their “services” for poor women, but if your goal was to try and reduce the black population would the activity look any different? Put another way, if the Klan were to open a clinic, where do you think they would put it?

Also, I didn’t see “holocaust” (spelled with one ‘L’) mentioned in the article, but I could be wrong. I did see a reference to Hitler as being influenced by american eugenicists, which I think is accurate. None of the points made reach the level of comparing abortion to the holocaust in my view. The term genocide can be applied to events other than The Holocaust of the 30’s and 40’s.

But would it be wrong to compare the evil of the Holocaust to abortion? over 35 million unborn children have died since 1973. Abortion is a far greater evil than pretty much anything in the history books, because it is not just allowed, it is accepted. Almost no one would argue that the events of the Holocaust were horrific, but millions of people would defend the practice of brutally torturing and murdering innocent unborn children.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Btw, I’m not disagreeing with you, it just seemed as if you were implying it would be wrong to compare the two. Abortion is like eugenics 2.0 though, so I think it’s a logical comparison. Forced sterilization is also no longer needed, when most couples voluntarily sterilize their sexual acts by the use of contraceptives.

Sorry for being off topic.

 

[mark_a]

many studies show that one of the reasons drug babies are so small is because they purpously pinch off their umbical cord while the mother does drugs. no animal…even chimps…do this.

Interesting!!

Got a link?

 

[purplesunshine]

No i unfortunatly dont. i dont even know if the journals could be found online short of an acedemic search engine like lycos. from what i remember about the article the research was done in the mid to early 90s. i read about it many years ago from my athiest but pro life roomate. Weve fallen out of contact but i know she has been instrumental in shutting down embrionic stem cell research because she is pro life. still as liberal as blue itself and thinks there is no god…but driven to protevt the human life and wrote AMAZING pro life papers in college.

 

[BlueShadow123]

you dont need a link. if it is a scientific documentation, then it should be online somewhere. use google.

 

[mark_a]

you dont need a link. if it is a scientific documentation, then it should be online somewhere. use google.

Sorry, I’m a bit too lazy for that.

 

[purplesunshine]

you dont need a link. if it is a scientific documentation, then it should be online somewhere. use google.

the full texts of every single research paper evr written are not available on the internet and often not for free…especally when mainstream media dosn`t care to broadcast them. i know that popular magazines such as readers digest ran some things in the ninties . the article about prenatal surgery was called “the baby that was born twice” which i only remember because of the intriguing title. but what year and issue i cannot say. inever even saw the magazine itself only the printout from a very pricy acedemic database. sorry not everything is on google. it may just be that you have to take my word for it or research it yourself

 

[JHow]

… it just seemed as if you were implying it would be wrong to compare the two (The Holocaust and abortion)…

I was just saying that I didn’t think that the article had made such a direct comparison between the two.

To your point, abortion is the great evil we face now, so I give it more priority - Hitler is gone (Thank God!). I am not overly interested in body count arguments to assess which is more evil (communism’s body count was certainly greater than Hitler’s, for example), at some point evil is evil enough for me.

The point I took from the article was more than just abortion being an evil, but whether or not abortion policy was motivated in anyway by specific antipathy towards blacks? I think there is some merit in this argument. Many bad social experiments in our history started this way, for example, prohibition of alcohol, gun controls, anti-drug policies. You may be in favor of these for many reasons, but they all appeared first historically as anti-black measures.

 

[faithfully]

first off, the fetus has not lived their life yet, and they are not aware as to what is happening to them.

Blue, and anyone else that thinks the fetus is not aware… I challenge you to head on over to youtube.

Search: “The horror of a live abortion procedure.” It’s in 3 parts. Part 2 shows the abortion on ultrasound. You MUST see this if you are going to speak as if with authority on the subject!

Now, the baby does not know the word for what is happening. But it KNOWS that something terribly, terribly wrong is going on.

Watch it and suggest otherwise…

Not posting a link as it is not pleasant to watch. I don’t want someone opening it without realizing what they are going to see… I hope the referance isn’t removed. I’m well aware abortion is Anti Catholic. However, I think many, many, many women are under the false misunderstanding that their baby feels nothing…

 

[faithfully]

I was just saying that I didn’t think that the article had made such a direct comparison between the two.

To your point, abortion is the great evil we face now, so I give it more priority - Hitler is gone (Thank God!). I am not overly interested in body count arguments to assess which is more evil (communism’s body count was certainly greater than Hitler’s, for example), at some point evil is evil enough for me.

The point I took from the article was more than just abortion being an evil, but whether or not abortion policy was motivated in anyway by specific antipathy towards blacks? I think there is some merit in this argument. Many bad social experiments in our history started this way, for example, prohibition of alcohol, gun controls, anti-drug policies. You may be in favor of these for many reasons, but they all appeared first historically as anti-black measures.

Don’t you wonder what kind of power this sort of information has? I have NEVER heard this before yesterday. I’m well educated. Although, I have not studied in depth abortion and its roots. I’ve heard all about Roe Vs. Wade, but couldn’t even tell you how they posed their arguments… or what, the “goal” really was…

Don’t you wonder what kind of impact this MIGHT have on the whole debate if it were really out there? Perhaps nothing. But, I KNOW I saw (on the news) the black community lining up during the election to vote for a man they truly knew NOTHING about. Do you think they might step up to the plate and swing the vote again?
Don’t you wonder if we were to get this out there even MORE!!! What would people think?

Is it possible to eliminate abortion by showing how racist it is? Just a thought…

 

[faithfully]

I’m going to go out on a limb here… I don’t think that MOST couples voluntarily sterilize their sexual act by use of contraceptives… I think if they did…

There is NO WAY we would have over 1 MILLION abortions just last year alone.

# of abortions in 2009

Not that I’m for forcedd sterilization… or that it was EVER needed… But education is where it’s at! People that are willing to abort already put their soul at terrible, terrible risk. They need MORE information on how to prevent this horror!

 

[JHow]

Don’t you wonder what kind of power this sort of information has? I have NEVER heard this before yesterday. I’m well educated. Although, I have not studied in depth abortion and its roots. I’ve heard all about Roe Vs. Wade, but couldn’t even tell you how they posed their arguments… or what, the “goal” really was…

Don’t you wonder what kind of impact this MIGHT have on the whole debate if it were really out there? Perhaps nothing. But, I KNOW I saw (on the news) the black community lining up during the election to vote for a man they truly knew NOTHING about. Do you think they might step up to the plate and swing the vote again?
Don’t you wonder if we were to get this out there even MORE!!! What would people think?

Is it possible to eliminate abortion by showing how racist it is? Just a thought…

I first heard this line of thought in late 70’s argued by Jesse Jackson, who was previously pro-life, but became pro-death when he ran for president in mid 80’s. The quote that everybody refers to is “abortion is black genocide”, which Jackson supposedly wrote in 1977. I took a look around the web to see if I could find the source, but did not, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there, 1977 was before the internet (It’s just like those Newsweek and Time Global Cooling stories that I recall, but are hard to find now!)

Anyhow, I think it is a powerful argument, because I think it is a true argument. I think the early PP folks did have racial motives, and further I think that today, the system they designed certainly over-represents blacks (and hispanics) in terms of its outcomes.

P.J. O’Rourke once wrote that population control boils down to “Just enough of me, way too much of you!”

While pro-“choice” is a Democrat position, I don’t think its a natural “black” political position - many blacks (MLK included) are pro-life. And I did notice that black voters that came out for Obama in 2008 also helped put Prop. 8 over in California.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

Don’t you wonder what kind of power this sort of information has? I have NEVER heard this before yesterday. I’m well educated. Although, I have not studied in depth abortion and its roots. I’ve heard all about Roe Vs. Wade, but couldn’t even tell you how they posed their arguments… or what, the “goal” really was…

Don’t you wonder what kind of impact this MIGHT have on the whole debate if it were really out there? Perhaps nothing. But, I KNOW I saw (on the news) the black community lining up during the election to vote for a man they truly knew NOTHING about. Do you think they might step up to the plate and swing the vote again?
Don’t you wonder if we were to get this out there even MORE!!! What would people think?

Is it possible to eliminate abortion by showing how racist it is? Just a thought…

These folks are trying their hardest to get the information out there.

 

[Timothy17]

Blue, and anyone else that thinks the fetus is not aware… I challenge you to head on over to youtube.

Search: “The horror of a live abortion procedure.” It’s in 3 parts. Part 2 shows the abortion on ultrasound. You MUST see this if you are going to speak as if with authority on the subject!

Now, the baby does not know the word for what is happening. But it KNOWS that something terribly, terribly wrong is going on.

Watch it and suggest otherwise…

Not posting a link as it is not pleasant to watch. I don’t want someone opening it without realizing what they are going to see… I hope the referance isn’t removed. I’m well aware abortion is Anti Catholic. However, I think many, many, many women are under the false misunderstanding that their baby feels nothing…

… are you serious ? Are you certain that the babies actually “feel it” or are “aware” of it in any way ? If that’s true, than even animal rights laws would work to protect a supposedly “not-human” unborn child…

I’m not kidding. If you can demonstrate that the unborn child demonstrates emotional or physical duress, especially in the form of pain, due to the actions taken by the abortionist, then you can -sad and insufficient as it is- argue cruelty, inhumane treatment, etc. It’s quite feasible for a lawyer to argue to protect the unborn on these grounds. Granted, it may not work to protect the earliest developments after conception - but its a definite start. This would put the abortionists in the obviously disgusting position of trying to argue that unborn children aren’t even worthy the same basic rights we grant animals, while the public also gets the shocking revelation that the unborn are being physically traumatized by these attrocious procedures.

Pain is something universally felt and detested. If you can demonstrate pain people can not only sympathize, but even empathize with the unborn. This would shatter the abortionists’ illusion.

Now, this is a pathetic argument to be having in a supposedly “civilized” society, but if we want to save the unborn we should do everything and anything we can, I believe.

Pax,
Tim

 

[faithfully]

… are you serious ? Are you certain that the babies actually “feel it” or are “aware” of it in any way ? If that’s true, than even animal rights laws would work to protect a supposedly “not-human” unborn child…

I’m not kidding. If you can demonstrate that the unborn child demonstrates emotional or physical duress, especially in the form of pain, due to the actions taken by the abortionist, then you can -sad and insufficient as it is- argue cruelty, inhumane treatment, etc. It’s quite feasible for a lawyer to argue to protect the unborn on these grounds. Granted, it may not work to protect the earliest developments after conception - but its a definite start. This would put the abortionists in the obviously disgusting position of trying to argue that unborn children aren’t even worthy the same basic rights we grant animals, while the public also gets the shocking revelation that the unborn are being physically traumatized by these attrocious procedures.

Pain is something universally felt and detested. If you can demonstrate pain people can not only sympathize, but even empathize with the unborn. This would shatter the abortionists’ illusion.

Now, this is a pathetic argument to be having in a supposedly “civilized” society, but if we want to save the unborn we should do everything and anything we can, I believe.

Pax,
Tim

TIM… did you watch the video??? They show the abortion of the baby via ultra sound. A Dr. talks you through the entire procedure. As ultrasounds can be hard to “see” the first few times. The procedure is in in part 2 of 3 of the video series. It’s on youtube!

When the suction devise is inserted the baby rears back. It’s heart rate goes WAY up. (why would it do that??? Stress makes our hearts go up… or excitement of some sort. They HAVE to be aware on some level for that to happen. IT FIGHTS! It’s little mouth opens and closes in what one can only assume is a scream. Babies are good at the the 2nd they arrive. And when the suction starts… If you’re not in tears… it’s terrible… WATCH IT!

Now, I don’t know if you’ve seen a 3 d ultra sound. the detail is amazing. NO GUESS WORK. And as gross as it would be, I think an abortion should be recorded in 3d. I think if you’re not puking by the end of the procedure… well, I have words I shouldn’t write!

If you watch the whole video, they will explain, that the Dr. that performed the abortion that was recorded… he was young. But had EASILY done over 20,000 abortions himself… was brought in for editing.

He had to excuse himself during the editing. It made him ill. Not sure if he actually got sick. He finished the editing. And then he NEVER did another abortion again.

People go into these procedures with a false illusion of what’s going on. I don’t believe that young women really KNOW what they are aborting. They don’t try to find out either. They think it’s just a little blob that’s making them sick.

I have a friend, when she went in for her first ultrasound with her husband, he started crying. He had been a participant in at least 1 or 2 abortions prior to their marriage. He said he had NO IDEA what the baby might have looked like. He was horrified at what he had done… PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW…

When do you think a baby develops the ability to feel pain? Those little buggers are screaming the 2nd they get out. Touch them with anything except mommies skin and they freak (especially when they are premies like mine were.)

Yes, we would treat a dog better!

 

[zdon011]

… are you serious ? Are you certain that the babies actually “feel it” or are “aware” of it in any way ? If that’s true, than even animal rights laws would work to protect a supposedly “not-human” unborn child…
…
Pain is something universally felt and detested. If you can demonstrate pain people can not only sympathize, but even empathize with the unborn. This would shatter the abortionists’ illusion.

The problem is that when pro-lifers try to publicize, for example by broadcasting pictures of aborted foetuses, abortion activists claim that they’re being ‘emotive’ or ‘ghoulish’.

This wouldn’t matter except fot the disgusting fact that courts have actually accepted such arguments in the past:banghead:
A pro-life group in England was barred from showing pictures of aborted foetuses on TV because a judge accepted pro-choicers’ argument that it would be ‘upsetting to children’. As if they care about hurting children. A bloody sick joke.

 

[faithfully]

ok… there is NO abortion happening in the 3d Video

Notice how this baby can grip its own chord. It rubs its eyes… I THINK we’re looking at a boy. “He” flashes us a few times…

See, I don’t think the pro-choicers want a 3d recording… and although, I think I would be amazing evidence for what the baby goes through… I certainly could stand by and record it…

 

[AngelRS]

the power of marketing - different name but recycled ideology…