I just uploaded 2 recent segments to YouTube on Fox spotlighting Planned Parenthood’s racism: accepting donations specifically to abort black babies.
Laura Ingraham on The O’Reilly Factor, April 25, 2008…
Brit Hume, April 24, 2008…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Those prank phone calls are proof positive that Planned Parenthood is a racist entity?
The founder of Planned Parenthood built Planned Parenthood on racist principles. This is just confirmation that her founders vision still lives on.
Wouldn’t a non racist PP say they do not utilize donations on the basis of race or ethnicity but rather on the need of the woman?
When I worked with a CPC, we did not receive, and we would never have honored, any calls specifying that assistance was to go to white women only.
Laura,
I’m not sure it shows that they necessarily hate blacks. I do believe the organization was founded on that purpose, but for the most part I think their employees are just ignorant of that role they play in exterminating the population.
HOWEVER, If someone calls a non-profit organization saying that they have an utterly racist reason for giving your group money, you say NO.
Here’s an analogy. A lot of people like to label the Church as necessarily organized pedophilia. It’s not. And to say that every member is a pedophile isn’t fair. Likewise, I will not accuse every PP member of being racist. But, if I work for a Church, and I get that kind of call in – earmarking money for such evil purposes… I say no – keep your money.
Is it racist to donate money for scholarships that will go toward a black person?
“Is it racist to donate money for scholarships that will go toward a black person?”
Only if the scholarship helps him or her get a degree in black liberation theology.
Edyt:
You’re kidding right?
You’re that callous that you can compare the systemized murder of children in the womb to scholarship adminstration?
hey Hisman, what you would call “the systemized murder of children in the womb” others would call
“non profit health care provider.”
Did I miss much in the last week or so?
Planned Parenthood 11 percent profit,
Oil companies 9 percent profit.
Windfall profit taxes for Oil Companies.
Non Profit Status for Planned Parenthood.
Buncha Brainiacs
hey Hisman, what you would call “the systemized murder of children in the womb” others would call
“non profit health care provider.”
Which is why the QOTD is so apropos…
“We can’t have it both ways: Babies are babies when we want them and also when we don’t.”
That IS a great quote of the day!!
KB, 12:42 yup.
“hey Hisman, what you would call “the systemized murder of children in the womb” others would call “non profit health care provider.” ”
Hey Doughal, what some would call “the systemized murder of Israelis and other free peoples”, others would call “a provider for the welfare of widows.” (I’m referring to Hamas and Hezbollah)
John L, EXACTLY!!
others would call “a provider for the welfare of widows.”
Or the provider of widows for the welfare of Islam…
what some would call “the systemized murder of Israelis and other free peoples”, others would call “a provider for the welfare of widows.” (I’m referring to Hamas and Hezbollah)
How would that really “provide for the widows”?
Certain tribes have always been after certain other tribes. You can say anything but it remains true to this day. It’s a good thing that most of the world’s people aren’t involved in it.
It’s also a good thing that women have the freedom that they do in the matter of choosing to continue pregnancies or not.
Awww Doug,
Aren’t you your brothers keeper?
The founder of Planned Parenthood built Planned Parenthood on racist principles. This is just confirmation that her founders vision still lives on.
Posted by: Brian at May 1, 2008 6:20 PM
*******************
This is a really idiotic argument. For starters, PP was built on trying to help poor women obtain information on birth control – ALL poor women, not women of any particular race. Abortion wasnt legal when PP was founded. Trying to PREVENT women dying from abortion was one motivation for Sanger. But does the fact that most of the founders of this country, the framers of the BOR and Constitution, were racists and many owned slaves mean that the US is a racist nation which supports slavery? Same difference.
“We can’t have it both ways: Babies are babies when we want them and also when we don’t.”
Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 5:50 AM
************************
Mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue isnt a baby regardless of whether its wanted or not. And yes, I most certainly can recognize the difference between a wanted and unwanted pregnancy. Whining ‘you cant have it both ways’ is ridiculous.
I’m not sure it shows that they necessarily hate blacks. I do believe the organization was founded on that purpose, but for the most part I think their employees are just ignorant of that role they play in exterminating the population.
**************
It wasnt. Learn something about PP from an objective source instead of from antichoice propaganda rags. Sanger wanted to help poor women – not black or white or yellow or brown – but POOR womem get access to sex education and contraceptives. She wanted to be able to help them prevent one pregnancy after another and having children they couldnt take care of and couldnt provide for. She wanted to prevent them from having abortions. She didnt found PP because she ‘hated blacks’. That’s absolutely ridiculous.
Doug,
I thought you said that nobody actually believes that a mindless insensate noviable oblivious tissue isn’t a baby.
You told me that EVERYONE knows it’s a human being…so?
ignoring TR today…..
TR,
and you call us naive?
TR,
and you call us naive?
Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 11:46 AM
*****************
No, typically I call you dishonest, manipulative, misogynistic and self centered. I dont equate being stupid with being naive.
Doug,
I thought you said that nobody actually believes that a mindless insensate noviable oblivious tissue isn’t a baby.
You told me that EVERYONE knows it’s a human being…so?
Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 11:44 AM
***************
It may come as a shock to you, but Doug doesnt speak for me. Doug’s know that for a long, long time.
ignoring TR today…..
Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 11:45 AM
*************
Of course you are.
Avoidance of reality is one of your favorite passtimes.
I’m with you, Janet! :)
Yes, please.
I would agree that Sanger wanted to help poor women have access to birth control.
At the same time, she decided that the “unfit” had no right bear children. She condemned large families, and if one reads her “Woman and the New Race”, she continuously refers to the “native white race”.
She also believed abortion killed a child. So much so that she had it posted on the door of her first birth control clinic in New York.
I don’t see her up for canonization anytime soon.
Awww Doug, aren’t you your brothers keeper?
MK, yes, to some extent, like almost all of us. I just didn’t get why war/conflict would be a “provider for widows.” Maybe the meaning was that they produce widows?
…..
I thought you said that nobody actually believes that a mindless insensate noviable oblivious tissue isn’t a baby.
You told me that EVERYONE knows it’s a human being…so?
No, to the first part. Heck I think everybody knows darn well that some think “baby” can apply or does apply to the unborn and that for some it’s only after birth.
It’s subjective – the application is in the eye of the beholder, in the opinion of the user, etc.
Personally, and this isn’t arguing abortion, I think “unborn baby” fits about halfway through gestation, when the “form” is pretty clear and there’s been the amount of development that’s normal then.
IMO to say that the zygote, blastocyst, etc., is “a baby” is just downright silly. On the other hand, “unborn baby” is understood by all and it’s just a semantic argument that gets run into the ground.
On “human being,” you are close – I don’t think the physical reality of the unborn is at issue.
As far as meaning “living human organism” then “human being” applies, and I’ve said that I would argue as vehemently as any with people who maintain otherwise.
It’s true that I don’t speak for Iva, but she’s not saying that the unborn are “not human” nor “not alive” nor “not an organism.”
There are other senses of “human being” that ARE at issue in the abortion debate, and this is where we get into the real argument.
Additionally, I don’t see Iva saying it’s not a “human being” in this thread. If she has said it other places, I assume she means in the legal sense and/or with implication of being a thnking, feeling entity, etc.
Doug,
She called it mindless insensate noviable obliviousTISSUE.
She didn’t and never has, even said HUMAN TISSUE.
Please, don’t insult my intelligence.
Doug,
Personally, and this isn’t arguing abortion, I think “unborn baby” fits about halfway through gestation, when the “form” is pretty clear
I’d say this “form” was pretty clear. Wouldn’t you?
And lastly Doug,
When you can change this statement
On “human being,” you are close – I don’t think the physical reality of the unborn is at issue
To this statement
On “human being,” you are close – I don’t think the physical reality of the unborn is a tissue
Then I think you’ll finally be “getting it”…
MK: She called it mindless insensate noviable obliviousTISSUE. She didn’t and never has, even said HUMAN TISSUE. Please, don’t insult my intelligence.
Oh please. If you asked her, would she not say it’s human tissue? We all are human tissue, after all. To a point in gestation it’s correct to say nonviable, etc. What are you actually claiming Iva said that is incorrect?
……
“Personally, and this isn’t arguing abortion, I think “unborn baby” fits about halfway through gestation, when the “form” is pretty clear.”
I’d say this “form” was pretty clear. Wouldn’t you?
Again, IMO “human being” applies all along, on the basis of being in existence and of human derivation, having human DNA, etc. “Baby” or not is a matter of opinion, there, and I was giving mine.
Which way is the wind blowing today, Doug?
Doug,
Then why doesn’t she say mindless, insensate, noviable, oblivious human being?
I think it’s because she doesn’t think it IS a human being. Not talking personhood here. I think she doesn’t believe it IS human. Or a human.
Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, but they also provide money and other aid to the widows of suicide bombers who blow themselves to in order to murder Jews and other “infidels”.
But you can talk about Hamas and Hezbollah as being charitable organizations and ignore the terrorism, just as you can talk about Planned Parenthood being a women’s health organization and ignore the abortion.
Sorry, that should read “blow themselves to bits”. Kind of like what D&E does to a baby.
Which way is the wind blowing today, Doug?
Carder, the way of asking Iva if she thinks fetuses and embryos have a shape, etc. Of course she’d say yes.
That does not mean they are sensate or viable, and hence they can certainly be insensate and nonviable tissue, etc.
I think it’s because she doesn’t think it IS a human being. Not talking personhood here. I think she doesn’t believe it IS human. Or a human.
MK, as far as actually what it is, I think you and Iva would mostly be on the same page.
She knows “it’s human.” To say differently is just one more straw man.
With “a human” – aye, then the arguments start, for real.
Hey Iva, maybe we could get an answer from you on this. Do you think that embryos/zygotes/fetuses in the womb of a woman are human?
It’s also a good thing that women have the freedom that they do in the matter of choosing to continue pregnancies or not.
Posted by: Doug at May 2, 2008 10:36 AM
Killing your baby because your boyfriend doesn’t want you or the baby is not “good”.
Hey Iva, maybe we could get an answer from you on this. Do you think that embryos/zygotes/fetuses in the womb of a woman are human?
Posted by: Bethany at May 3, 2008 9:20 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fat sucked from my thighs was human.
It was not, however, a person.
Seems everyone can speak for Iva but Iva.
“It’s also a good thing that women have the freedom that they do in the matter of choosing to continue pregnancies or not.
Killing your baby because your boyfriend doesn’t want you or the baby is not “good”.
And the pregnant woman or girl might feel that way, yes. If on balance she wants to continue the pregnancy, then she won’t willingly end it. Otherwise, even if she sees it as picking from two “not good” choices, she may end it.
Doug:
By”on balance” do you mean weighing the pro’s and con’s? What if she makes a decision to abort and her conscience starts to tell her it was a mistake? How does she learn to live with her decision? What internal reasoning does she rely on to justify her decision ?
By”on balance” do you mean weighing the pro’s and con’s? What if she makes a decision to abort and her conscience starts to tell her it was a mistake? How does she learn to live with her decision? What internal reasoning does she rely on to justify her decision ?
Janet, yes, she weighs the pro’s and con’s. (Do those apostrophes have to be in there? I tried it without, and it didn’t look right.) I think it’d be rare to be completely unconflicted about it, feeling entirely one way or the other.
If she decides to have an abortion and then doesn’t want to, again on balance, then she won’t. If she already has, then she’s going to think she made a mistake.
The internal reasoning is the weighing of the pro’s and con’s. If she really does regret a thing, how she lives with it is up to her.
Doug, It looks like you are right!
At askoxford.com:
Frequently Asked Questions – Usage
I used the expression ‘pros and cons’ in an exam paper. I was told that I should not use abbreviations! What words should I have used?
You will find the phrase pros and cons in our larger dictionaries, which do not mark it as ‘informal’ or in any way restricted in use. The complete 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary explains that it is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase pro et contra, ‘for and against’, and that it has been in use in the abbreviated form since the 16th century. In other words, it is a well established standard usage.
The alternative is the much longer ‘arguments for and against’.
Janet, it’s just that “pros” looks like what would be pronounced “pross,” IMO. Just used to the apostrophes, I guess.