Happy Mother’s day from Planned Parenthood II
On Friday Planned Parenthood used the Mother’s Day holiday to once more carouse for cash, this time using mother and daughter pitchwomen Blythe Danner and Gwyneth Paltrow. See first appeal here.
I really don’t have words to decry PP’s gall.
But these 2 pathetic Hollywood liberals? It’s beyond abnormal for a woman who is both mother and grandmother to promote mothers killing their own children while embracing a daughter spared from her own demise thanks only to timing and circumstance.
Did Blythe kill any of Gwyneth’s siblings? Did Gwyneth kill any of Blythe’s grandchildren? No problem either way. Let’s hug.
I’ve highlighted the most bizarre statements.
[HT: John Jansen of Pro-Life Action League]
May.12, 2008 3:30 pm |
Industry watch |
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.
While in the neonatal ICU to visit my sister’s baby a few days ago, I noticed a section of a bulletin board devoted to resources and aid for new mothers. City and state agencies were listed, as well two of the local pregnancy resource centers run by pro-lifers.
Despite having a stranglehold on NY state’s Capital Region, Planned Parenthood wasn’t listed. Just what services do they offer new mothers? Cribs? Diapers? Free parenting classes? 40th trimester abortions?
That last one was a South Park reference, for those who know ;)
I watched a program the other night called CHILDREN OF THE GRAVE – it was a paranormal theme but they brought out some interesting facts. I havent done the research to verify them but still … according to them, thousands of orphan and foundling children are buried in mass graves in Indianapolis – they didnt have names, just numbers. They were abandoned by their parents or orphaned or taken out of homes which were too neglectful or abusive …. and once they were in the orphanages or foundling homes, they died. According to them, there were over 30,000 orphans living in the streets of New York. The Orphan Trains took children out into the west and people pulled them off and used them as basically slave labor – not all, but a lot. And the ones who didnt get taken off wound up in Indianapolis in the orphans homes. They died of disease and neglect and malnutrition. Some died because formaldehyde got mixed with milk. Apparently the city of Indianapolis is very stingy with records from this time frame. But please dont pretend that abortion was made illegal because people ‘back then’ cared so much more for children. Please dont try to pretend that not having access to contraceptives is a good thing. This was the world in which Margaret Sanger lived. These 30,000 orphan children in the streets of New York would have been children she saw every day of her life when she was visiting the sick. She would have known of the thousands of children – some kidnapped off the streets – put on trains and treated like so much livestock with the rejects being housed in Dickensian ‘asylums’. Margaret Sanger wanted to help poor women have fewer children, not through abortion but through contraception and thats why she founded Planned Parenthood. And what she did was a good thing, out of genuine compassion for the women and the children she saw every day.
Mother Theresa had genuine compassion, too. She talked women out of abortions, even offered to keep the child and find a loving home for it.
Some of her nuns even taught NFP.
And Mother theresa NEVER lauded the “native white race” that Sanger had a fixation on.
One’s beatified, the other is not.
If that story is true, that is downright despicable. I hope it never repeats itself.
“It’s beyond abnormal for a woman who is both mother and grandmother to promote mothers killing their own children while embracing a daughter spared from her own demise thanks only to timing and circumstance.”
Many (most?) mothers are pro-choice. I don’t see anything “abnormal” about this.
Mother Theresa had genuine compassion, too. She talked women out of abortions, even offered to keep the child and find a loving home for it.
Some of her nuns even taught NFP.
And Mother theresa NEVER lauded the “native white race” that Sanger had a fixation on.
One’s beatified, the other is not.
If that story is true, that is downright despicable. I hope it never repeats itself.
Posted by: carder at May 12, 2008 4:32 PM
*********************************
A whole lot of the men who framed the BOR and Constitution were racists, they owned slaves and thought it was perfectly justified. That doesnt mean that the US today is a slave nation or a racist nation. The same thing is true of Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger tried to PREVENT abortions. Abortion was illegal when she founded PP. In fact abortion was illegal for most of Sangers life if not all of it. Im not sure exactly when she died. But dont try to pretend that Sanger was some monster. She was trying to help poor women from having children they couldnt take care of and she was trying to keep them from having to decide to have an illegal abortion. And dont try to pretend that ‘back then’ people cared so much more for kids than they do now. You also need to face the fact that not everyone was impressed with Mother T – and I happen to be one of them who isnt.
So Planned Parenthood thinks it does more for mothers than any other organization “it knows of”?
No wonder adoption referrals from Planned Parenthood are so dreadful. Because they ignore them. Every adoption agency does more for mothers (both the birth-mother and adoption-mother) than Planned Parenthood.
If killing her child is a wonderful thing to do for mothers, then Planned Parenthood wins by a landslide.
TR – enough. Stick to the topic and act respectful or leave.
TR 4:07PM
These children were orphans, not necessarily the results of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
Life was very hard in the era you describe. Being orphaned was sadly not an uncommon occurance. My father grew up an orphan as did his siblings. My great-grandmother, a desititute widow, had to farm her children out to indentured servitude for their own survival, a not uncommon practice when parents had to face the likelihood of children going hungry.
Yes these were tragic situations, but like I said not uncommon in the era you describe. Certainly Margaret Sanger would have seen this and considerably worse, like filthy living conditions, beggers, sewage in the steets, etc.
These were problems that would not be solved with birth control. What would improve the situation was better sanitation, public health measures, advances in medicine, better wages, and child labor laws.
TR: 4:48:You also need to face the fact that not everyone was impressed with Mother T – and I happen to be one of them who isnt.
If she had found you sick and dying on the street, she would have cared for you in a heartbeat. Who cares where her money came from, beggars can’t always be choosers, IMO,…. just in case that was your next point.
Carder:4:32: Mother Theresa was a beautiful soul. Have you read this book about her? It’s excellent.
Something Beautiful for God: Mother Teresa of Calcutta
By: Malcolm Muggeridge
HarperSanFrancisco / 1986 / Paperback
Product Description
Malcolm Muggeridge’s classic documentary on the famous Albanian nun of Calcutta. Though Muggeridge was an agnostic the witness of the love of the Sisters of Charity and Mother Teresa, turned Muggeridge’s agnotiscm into a very unexpected faith. Though this book’s focus is Mother Teresa, it is also a statement of the very unexpected transformation of the author. An excellent book that is bound to put one on the path to faith.
Mary, This came up a few months ago, were you the one who commented on these orphan trains?
Not all orphans back then had dead parents. I read a few stories where the parents just gave up their kids. Some for “selfish” reasons, others because they just couldn’t take care of them. Lots of kids were forced into the street by their parents, and babies were often abandoned.
TR: ” But dont try to pretend that Sanger was some monster. ”
sanger: ” It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. ”
what exactly should i think then about comments such as the one above. you excuse entirely too much racism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
Certainly Margaret Sanger would have seen this and considerably worse, like filthy living conditions, beggers, sewage in the steets, etc.
These were problems that would not be solved with birth control. What would improve the situation was better sanitation, public health measures, advances in medicine, better wages, and child labor laws.
Posted by: Mary at May 12, 2008 5:04 PM
*************
Excuse me? Poverty wouldnt be lessened if parents were feeding four children instead of 12? Do you really expect to be taken seriously?
If she had found you sick and dying on the street, she would have cared for you in a heartbeat. Who cares where her money came from, beggars can’t always be choosers, IMO,…. just in case that was your next point.
*************
So what? Not everyone is impressed with Mother T. Deal with that fact. Get used to it. Its not going to change.
what exactly should i think then about comments such as the one above. you excuse entirely too much racism.
****************
Im not excusing racism. Im pointing out facts. Sanger wanted to try to help women prevent pregnancies. She did that out of compassion whether you have the guts to face that fact or not.
Yes these were tragic situations, but like I said not uncommon in the era you describe. Certainly Margaret Sanger would have seen this and considerably worse, like filthy living conditions, beggers, sewage in the steets, etc.
These were problems that would not be solved with birth control. What would improve the situation was better sanitation, public health measures, advances in medicine, better wages, and child labor laws.
Well said, Mary! You might be interested in a similar blog post by Christina of the Real Choice blog, on the poor living conditions in third world countries and attempts to push abortion and family planning:
Her thoughts are, “Kids in developing nations are still dying for lack of basic antibiotics and oral rehydration therapy — not to mention potable water and basic sanitation.
Which is why I want to throttle people whose solution to poverty is to just throw condoms, Pills, and cheap abortions at people. It’s adding insult to injury when people are helplessly watching their children die from preventable and treatable diseases, and the rich people “help” them by trying to spay and neuter them like so many stray cats. We don’t need Poverty Pimps going in and throwing abortion and contraception at people whose dream is to have a few children who survive to adulthood. They need a chance of survival for their children, not a way to keep them from ever drawing breath in the first place.”
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2008/05/condoms-wont-fix-this.html
Janet,
No I’m not the one who brought that up.
TR 5:15PM
What I’m saying is that eliminating poverty is not a simple matter of handing out birth control. The situation you describe had any number of causes, i.e. disease, malnutrition, lack of sanitation, ignorance, exploitation, etc.
Poverty would no be lessened by parents feeding 4 children instead of 12? Well my great grandmother farmed out 4 children to indentured servitude after losing 4 other of her children to such diseses as diptheria. Apparently fewer children did nothing to lessen her desperate circumstances.
Rachael 5:20PM,
Thank you. Like you, I have always maintained that the problems of poverty, malnutrition, inequality, ignorance, etc. are what have to be addressed and resolved.
TR: ” She did that out of compassion whether you have the guts to face that fact or not. ”
compassion: She called for “A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” ( “A Plan For Peace”, Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 106)
this is simply indefensible.
tainted progeny and objectionable inheritance. the question is not about me and it is not about you. this woman’s views are abominable and heinous.
Roger, Amen!!!
I am deleting any and all offensive comments in this thread today. I am sorry I was not here all day to take care of anything. If I miss anything please let me know.
Going to the admin CP now…..
Mary, 5:22: Thanks.
Jill, there is nothing absurd about those statements. You just seem unable to wrap your head around the fact that PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS NOT ALL ABOUT ABORTIONS!!!!!!!
But, you are stubborn and stuck in your falsehoods, so I’ll just smile and ignore it.
TR,
Thanks for not calling me an idiot, BTW. Or maybe Bethany deleted that, I don’t know.
I would agree that Sanger most certainly wanted to reduce the misery that surrounded her. There was, however, an agenda that was blatantly eugenist in her attempt to relieve the current condition.
I only brought up M. Teresa because here we have two examples of women who attempted to improve what they saw were grave injustices. One took a virtuous path, the other didn’t.
Going to the admin CP now…..
How about an “Administrative Storm Pit”?
TexasRed makes it sound as if Sanger never advocated for abortions because abortions were illegal. That’s a laugh.
You also need to face the fact that not everyone was impressed with Mother T – and I happen to be one of them who isnt.
Now why doesn’t that surprise me….
TR said,
Do you realize how ridiuclous you sound? Oh, Sanger should have just invented penicillin, flu vaccines, cured mental illness, built water delivery and sanitary sewers, stopped the abuses of the industrialists, made sure every child had unadulterated food….
Most of those positng such nonsense show that they have no sense of history. There were no support networks for caregivers back then, and the “asylums” and orphanages where bleak indeed.
Food deficiencies, even sunlight difficiencies caused horrendous, crippling conditions. Less children per family did indeed mean healthier remainng children.
Men who were treated as mere labor, as brute strength at work 12 hours per day often 6 days per week were capable of little more than brute behavior when they got home. And with no means of support, women were powerless to resist. And that in a time when chlidbirth often meant death.
How dare you judge the good that Sanger tried to do without imagining what horror life was like for many back then. How another mouth to feed really meant taking food from one’s other children.
Mother Teresa’s nuns were able to teach NFP because of the work of Margaret Sanger. In Sanger’s time, even giving out information about contraceptive methods was illegal.
It’s a false dichotomy between MT and MS. It’s also a false dichotomy to say effort would have been better expended on sanitation and medicine. Both MT and MS were practical women. One pursues both short and longterm solutions in the service of improving the human condition.
Anyone that believes that Sanger’s racism was remotely unusual for her time, is fooling themself.
Sanger’s mother experienced 18 pregnancies and died of TB and cervical cancer. She witnessed and experienced the second class status of women. The lack of concern for the health and well being of women. Every pregnancy carried with it the possibility of the woman’s death. More pregnanies meant the higher likelihood of death. In many instances this meant orphans living in the streets while their fathers worked long hours attempting to support them if they were willing and able to do so. If a woman became a widow, she had few if any options for employment. There were no food stamps. No homeless shelters. Can anyone understand the desperation of sending your kids out to the streets in hope that they will survive better without worrying about you? Be honest. Who will you give money to first—-a starving child or a starving woman?
Sanger actually did something to improve the lives of women. She educated them about their own bodies. Much to the condemnation of many religous folks.
Could someone tell me what Mother Theresa did to improve the lives of anyone?
When there were children, born, living, children and babies being killed by malnutrition, disease, or exposure, because parents simply didn’t have enough food to go around, or adequate nutrition to stave off death from common childhood disease, or enough coal to heat a flat, what Sanger advocated was contraception first, then abortion as an alternative to infanticide. Sanger saw (and rejoiced in) the day when abortion would not be needed because of contraception.
Hey Carder:
You’ve shown some sincere interest in leanring lately – kudos. If you want a pretty accurate idea of the hell life oculd be, one thing you can read is Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.”
Also read about the Comstock Laws.
Take a walk over the keyboards to Pandagon. Amanda Marcotte is usually right on with her critiques of the patriarchy in its many manifestations, Luddite and otherwise.
Heard you were banned – good to see that info was incorrect.
Amanda Marcotte is a reactionary quasi bigot. While she does a good job routing out many instances of anti-female bias, her self-righteous attitude covers much of what she writes and dillutes most of the positive impact she could have.
She gets an A for preaching fire and brimstone to the choir, but an D for actual conversion impact.
Ughhh. Planned Barrenhood and Mother’s Day?
I can’t wait till Cecile and the rest dry up and blow away
Could someone tell me what Mother Theresa did to improve the lives of anyone?
Are you serious?
Phylosopher,
Yes those horrendous conditions existed. The argument is that until the problems of poor sanitation, poverty, malnutrition, exploitations and ignorance, to name just a few, were addressed, birth control would not solve much of anything.
Women had several children to make sure any would survive. To have any children survive to adulthood was not something one took for granted. As I have pointed out my great-grandmother lost 5 or her 9 children, 3 in one week, another a year later, and 1 in early adulthood. She was the norm but also very fortunate, she had children who actually survived to adulthood.
Also, our ancestors may not have viewed having several children as we do now. When looking at life past and present, both that of our ancestors and other cultures, we view having large numbers of children from our cultural perspective, not that of our ancestors or people of other cultures.
Where our ancestors are concerned, keep in mind children did not expect the best clothes, a new car, or their own bedroom. Life was hard for both parents and children and this was to be expected.
In other cultures what we now view as such hardship may not be percieved as such by the people of that culture.
Our perspective is that children were and are the problem and their numbers must be controlled. Again, that is OUR perspective.
An added point Phylosopher, wherever the standard of living has made a marked improvement, the birth rate has stabilized.
Holy crap! You don’t have to read her biography. Just read Mother Teresa on wiki for cryin’ out loud.
phylosopher: ” If you want a pretty accurate idea of the hell life could be, one thing you can read is Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.”
you simply cannot equate grinding immigrant labor and the stockyards of chicago to negative eugenics. this comparison does not rise to the level of apples and oranges.
” Amanda Marcotte is usually right on with her critiques of the patriarchy in its many manifestations ”
i was following you fairly well until you trotted out this sorry excuse for illumination. ms marcotte is a hack. this should be intuitively obvious.
Prolife Atheist and Roger,
Why not just let TR or anyone else read for themselves? Oh, that’s right, you don’t believe in choice, but I didn’t think it extended to reading material.
Prolife Atheist and Roger,
Why not just let TR or anyone else read for themselves? Oh, that’s right, you don’t believe in choice, but didn’t think it extended to reading material.
Sally, since you asked, this is direct quotes from Wikipedia:
Sally 11:58PM
About Margaret Sanger’s mother dying of TB and cervical cancer.
This just stresses the point I have been trying to make.
TB is virtually non-existent and has been treatable for years.
Thanks to advances in medical care, maternal health, and sanitation, pregnancy need no longer be a possible death sentence.
Cervical cancer can be more easily detected and treated. In the past 20 years I have seen one woman die of cervical cancer.
The remaining social conditions you have described have been addressed over the years through labor laws, education, public health, better sanitation, more educational opportunities for women, and advances in medicine.
@Mary: Um… I wrote several papers this year about the HPV vaccine and cervical cancer and in my research I found that cervical cancer is the leading cause of death due to cancer in women around the world. Not so much here in the US, yes, because we have yearly screenings- but in Africa and Asia, countries, where yearly cervical exams are nonexistent…the death rate from cervical cancer is *muc* higher.
Tuberculosis is still a major killer around the world, especially as it seems to coincide with HIV infections. To keep tuberculosis under control in “tubercles”, you need CD4+ T-helper cells- the cells that are targeted by HIV. While tuberculosis isn’t common in the US or most of Europe anymore, it is still a major killer in Africa and Asia.
Rae,
Unfortunately you are correct concerning cervical cancer and TB still occuring in various parts of the world. I should have specified that I was referring only to the United States.
Mary wrote:
Yes those horrendous conditions existed. The argument is that until the problems of poor sanitation, poverty, malnutrition, exploitations and ignorance, to name just a few, were addressed, birth control would not solve much of anything.
Phylosopher repsonded:
Nonsense, Mary. In many cases, being able to divide a finite amount of food between 6 mouths instead of 12 certainly gave children of smaller families an edge in fighting disease and an eddge in brain development. Having a living mother instead of one who died birthing a sibling gave a child an edge in surviving to adulthood. Having two parents able to work and bring in more money could do the same.
Mary also wrote:
When looking at life past and present, both that of our ancestors and other cultures, we view having large numbers of children from our cultural perspective, not that of our ancestors or people of other cultures.
Phylosopher responded:
What you are terming ancestors, some of us are lucky enough to call grandparents and great grandparents, people that we had the chance to meet and talk with, to know. Phrases like “one more mouth to feed” didn’t come out of nowhere!
Your denial of the beneficial difference between small and large families, regardless of environmental conditions – which was certainly recognized by families of the time – defies logic and science.
Granted. there was a great cultural and practical difference between rural families and urban ones. But during the Depression/DustBowl era, rural familes were also devastated and their attitudes became similar to that of the urbanites as soils wore out. But Sanger worked mainly with urban poor.
It is interesting that you don’t even touch on the capitalist exploitation or the Comstock Laws which as stated above, made even the distribution of NFP material illegal and an imprisonable offense. Sanger changed attitudes that women and children mattered as more than potential labor or breeders of same.
It is the education and empowerment of women that causes the most reduction in family size, here and abroad.
Rae:
Kudos for your evenhandedness on the cervical cancer stats. May I add that many of those screenings (Pap smears) for the un- and under-insured are provided by Planned Parenthood?
Oh phylosopher, I don’t care who reads what – don’t get reactionary. I merely voiced my opinion of Marcotte and her blogging style.
I am anti-choice on other things; reading isn’t on that list. Murder, sexual harassment, slavery, rape….those are on the list.
Phylospher,
Yes nutrition was great. However that may do little to protect you from poor sanitation, lack of medical care, sewage in the streets, lack of hygience, not to mention the various diseases that were rampant such as rheumatic fever, scarlet fever, diptheria, whooping cough, and pneumonia. An earache in a child was a cause for grave concern, it would likely lead to meningitis. My mother was quarantined for diptheria, whooping cough, and scarlet fever. Who’s the last person you know that was afflicted with these diseases?
As I pointed out my great grandmother’s circumstances were no less desperate with 4 children than with 9. She still had to farm them out as indentured servants to keep them from going hungry.
A living mother was certainly a good thing, assuming she didn’t die of pneumonia, diptheria, an ear infection, a traumatic injury, untreatable cancer or TB, or an epidemic of some sort, as well as childbirth. My grandmother survived 5 births very nicely but left her children orphans after dying in the flu epidemic in 1918.
Sure a father was great too. Assuming he wasn’t working 12-16 hours a day for pittance. Its likely the children and mothers would have to work in sweatshops and dangerous factories as well.
I had the advantage of speaking to my grandparents, great aunts and uncles, I have one surviving uncle, and my mother. That’s how I acquired some knowledge of what life was like. By the way, my grandmother and her sisters limited their families to 1-2 children. Unlike their mother, better sanitation and public health made it more likely their children would survive to adulthood, all of whom did.
Again, the benefits of large or small families are in one’s perspective and are influenced by culture and bias.
Yes I did touch on capitalist exploitation when I made reference to “exploitation” in my 7:45am post. I also address “labor laws” in my 9:33am post as bringing about improvement in social conditions.
The education and empowerment of women brings about the reduction in family size here and abroad. Thanks for making my point. So does better sanitation, nutrition, and medical care.
Wondering why Kris wanted to cut and paste from wiki (we can all type in Mother Teresa, can’t we) I found that there has been quite a bit of criticism written too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism_2
The one that seemed most interesting is Aroup Chatterjee’s.
Did Mother Teresa do good, yes, but not unequivocally. Was she mostly altruistic, probably. But, like any human being, she probably had good and bad traits, and made some mistakes, and had doubts – her loss of faith is one. As a human being%
Anonymous, 10:04am
Does PP then follow up with the required medical care and treatment, surgery included, or must the woman be referred to a specialist? Somehow the un or under-insured will have to find a way to pay him/her.
@Anonymous: I don’t care where the cervical cancer screenings come from- as long as they’re getting done.
And for the record, from my research I’ve gotten on the Gardasil vaccine (the HPV vaccine)…the FDA may have jumped the gun on approving it. None of the studies done on it have gone more than 5 years yet- so we still have *no* idea about it’s long-term effectiveness. We also haven’t accounted for the fact the vaccine itself is against the protein coat (L1 protein) and that the carcinogenic strains (16,18) could undergo antigenic shift and then have a *new* protein coat not covered by the vaccine.
Rae,
A very informative and interesting post. People wonder why I have so little regard for the FDA.
conclusion of truncated post:
Did Mother Teresa do good, yes, but not unequivocally. Was she mostly altruistic, probably. But, like any human being, she probably had good and bad traits, and made some mistakes, and had doubts – her loss of faith is one. As a human being, her actions and words and effects are open to our analysis, as are Sanger’s. But honestly and not without consideration of context, as is this example form Kris:
“And now lets compare that to Saint Margaret Sanger, who said,
@Mary: What I always found interesting in those papers I read- was the “conflict of interest” bits. Each article had a listing of potential “conflict of interests” based on the people who wrote the paper (like if they worked for a drug company or whether the study got funding from a drug company).
Every single one that toted the “miraculous” protection of the vaccines (Gardasil the 4-strain vaccine and the other 2-strain vaccine who’s name I do not remember) had researchers that were EMPLOYED by the company that developed the vaccine and those companies *funded* the clinical trials.
I thought that was very…interesting, to say the least.
Phylo,
“and had doubts – her [Mother Teresa] loss of faith is one.”
Yes she had doubts and struggles, but it isn’t quite correct to say that she had a “loss of faith.” This is what we call a “dark night of the soul.” St. John of the Cross wrote about this in the 16th century. It really isn’t anything new or even surprising, despite what people like christopher hitchens say. It is very much a part of Catholic spirituality, and since hitchens doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, he tried to play it up like she was living a lie and that she was an atheist.
I don’t know if that’s what you were implying when you wrote “her loss of faith” or not. Just wanted to clarify.
Mary wrote:
Does PP then follow up with the required medical care and treatment, surgery included, or must the woman be referred to a specialist? Somehow the un or under-insured will have to find a way to pay him/her.
That’s about the same as asking if a CPC provides daycare and a college scholarship for the children of women who use their services.
Cervical cancers usually don’t produce symptoms until well advanced. So many women of limited income (those darn finite resources again) wouldn’t be tested if they had to pay – when there are other items like food, education, clothing or transportation for themsleves or their families – isn’t that one of the things Mother’s Day seeks to highlight, how mothers sacrifice for others?
So more would die without the screening – though treatment of limited income women (and underinsured) still needs to be funded.
Phylosopher 10:52am
You continue to make my argument and very well. Inadequate diet and toxin exposure i.e. sewage, bad hygiene, filthy living and working condititions, to name just a few.
You are correct that moron, imbecile, idiot, and fool were terms used to describe the various levels of retardation. And yes, dumping unwanted and bothersome people into institutions for whatever reason could be found was certainly a common practice.
Prolife atheist wrote:
Amanda Marcotte is a reactionary quasi bigot. While she does a good job routing out many instances of anti-female bias, her self-righteous attitude covers much of what she writes and dillutes most of the positive impact she could have.
She gets an A for preaching fire and brimstone to the choir, but an D for actual conversion impact.
I assume you meant radical not reactionary. But seriously, leave out the “female bias part” and you’d have a pretty good description of Jill Stanek. Perhpas it’s just something about bloggers?
Mary wrote:
“You continue to make my argument and very well. Inadequate diet and toxin exposure i.e. sewage, bad hygiene, filthy living and working condititions, to name just a few.”
No one is denying the conditions, but breeding more, which worsened the conditions, and when women didn’t want to, was ludicrous. Remember no one knew when those condition would/could be alleviated.
Phylosopher,
Women who want a pap test badly enough can get them. Doctors treat patients on a sliding scale, there are free clinics, and social services provides referral and financial assistance such as medicaid. Women can also check with the health dept.
Unfortunately, I think we all know people who for whatever reason take little responsibility for their health or do not consider it a priority.
My point is that the money and resources must be found, and I have never seen a situation where they weren’t, if the woman requires treatment.
By the way, the CPC can refer to sliding scale day care and where the woman can apply for a scholarship. We frequently referred women to social services and had social workers and counsellors who donated their services. The resources were there, the women needed help finding them.
Phylosopher,
Women had to “breed” to make certain any children would survive. As I pointed out, it has never failed that in societies where living standards markedly improve, the birth rate decreases.
Well Bobby, What I’m trying to point out, is that both Sanger and Mother Teresa were human beings who were not perfect. Both women tried to improve society with the tools at hand. Both were products of their times. There needs to be honesty in dealing with both.
The beatification of Mother Teresa seems to have necessitated a denial of any flaws – that’s problematic and dehumanizing.
The knee jerk reactions of the antichoice side to Margaret Sanger, also dehumanzie. There has been some unbelievably dishonest decontextualizing of Sanger quotes, or attempts to infer (like Mary or Kris trying to imply that Sanger was politically incorrect discriminatory in a time when her terminology and attitude was in widespread, socially approved use.
Double standard, Mary. CPC’s refer; PP refers – yor point is?
Just called my local health department @ a Pap to test your claim – they referred all right – gave me the phone number of PP.
“Well Bobby, What I’m trying to point out, is that both Sanger and Mother Teresa were human beings who were not perfect. Both women tried to improve society with the tools at hand. Both were products of their times. There needs to be honesty in dealing with both. ”
That’s fair.
“The beatification of Mother Teresa seems to have necessitated a denial of any flaws – that’s problematic and dehumanizing.”
I don’t think anyone denied she had flaws. We believe that everyone has flaws and has sinned.
Women aren’t and weren’t that stupid, Mary. They knew (and attempted to implement) having fewer children. But in a time when women didn’t have full rights, and birth control inlcuding NFP information was illegal, that could be difficult if hubby wasn’t cooperative – as many weren’t.
Thinking people acknowledge that sanitation and the other items you’ve cited helped decrease mortality and desperation. But so did the ability to space and limit children with birth control, made accesible by Sanger. Denying that
just exposes the irrationality of your sides attempts to demonize Sanger at the cost of fact and logic.
Until you desist from such obtuseness it is useless attempting to dialogue with you.
Phylosopher: Until you desist from such obtuseness…
That’s the pot calling the kettle black. (Just kidding! :)
Did Mother Teresa do good, yes, but not unequivocally. Was she mostly altruistic, probably. But, like any human being, she probably had good and bad traits, and made some mistakes, and had doubts – her loss of faith is one
One might say, “at least she had a faith to lose”.
It’s curious how one who expresses a religious faith is always held to a higher standard than one who expresses none.
Phylosopher,
Did you also check the free clinics and social service agencies? How about doctors who see women on a sliding scale basis? Our health dept. will also give a referral to one of these.
You claim PP offers no or low cost pap smears. Great, but where do these women get the resources and money if they need extended follow up and care, including biopsies, since PP won’t provide it? Why doesn’t PP provide the follow up since it boasts of providing low cost health care to women? Certainly there’s more to our health care than pap smears and birth control.
CPCs don’t boast of providing low cost health care to women, we provide referals to doctors who volunteer their services and see these women through their pregnancies, delivery and after. We do not even advise on birth control because this is seen as giving medical advice and again refer women to the doctor.
You’re certainly right Phylosopher, women weren’t stupid. Birth control methods were around long before Margaret Sanger. They may have been crude, but women and men at least made the effort. Condoms, IUDs, and the barrier method are as old as civilization. Also the methods of Sanger’s time were not totally fool proof either and were also crude. Maybe then, like today, some people just didn’t want to bother. You’d be surprised how often I’ve heard that excuse even with today’s methods.
Such obtuseness? You said it best in your 9:57am post when you stated that it is the education and the enpowerment of women that causes the most reduction in family size, here and abroad. The argument I’ve been making all along. By the way I grew up near a landmark woman’s college opened in 1910 by, gasp, Dominican nuns!
Hitchens? blah blah blah.
TR – enough. Stick to the topic and act respectful or leave.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 12, 2008 4:55 PM
******************
WHERE is your admonition to HisMan Jill? You had his personal attack removed but WHERE is your post to HIM telling HIM to act respectful or leave? Or do you want to pretend that calling me a murdering pervert and a ‘freak’ is respectful?
“Hitchens? blah blah blah.”
You mean hitchens, Janet.
Bobby, What?
WHERE is your admonition to HisMan Jill? You had his personal attack removed but WHERE is your post to HIM telling HIM to act respectful or leave? Or do you want to pretend that calling me a murdering pervert and a ‘freak’ is respectful?
Posted by: TexasRed at May 13, 2008 6:47 PM
Red, HisMan has the decency to admit when he is wrong and apologize, which is respectful. You on the other hand just deny that you ever insult anyone because otherwise one out of every three of your posts would need to be an apology.
Mother Teresa certainly meant well,and she
did SOME good for some poor people.
But her goals of no abortion and no contra-
ception were pathetically unrealistic.
She was following the party line of the
Catholic church,which has unwittingly caused
so much misery for poor people around the
world.
So much good stuff today people! I think it’s important to remember the good things PP does for mothers. Birth control so they can have the amount of children they feel they can emotionally and financially care for- feeling in control of your life and being able to limit children means mothers have the resources to be the best they can to their kids. Cancer screenings. A place to take their children if they have questions about sex that the mom can’t answer herself. At work and can’t go into huge detail here, but take a second and think about the other 90% of services that aren’t abortion (which, if you ask me, can help mothers who are already trying to support 4 kids and cannot fathom having another…not my life, not my position to make that choice for her, but it makes me happy that she could have a safe abortion if she wanted to, for the sake of being able to give more of herself to her other kids). Fighting words are coming my way.
All of PP’s other services are subsidized by the government through no-bid contracts, like here in Tennessee, and other non-profits (like the notorious grants from Susan G. Komen). This is a front for them to entice women in the door. PP is an evil organization. They are doing nothing altruistic.
Any business such as PP that kills babies can hardly be celebrated for “all the good it does for women.” It hardly erases the evil it does.
Any company that sends 2 kids to camp but supports the killing of babies through PP does not get my business.
Robert:
Mother Teresa certainly meant well,and she
did SOME good for some poor people.
But her goals of no abortion and no contra-
ception were pathetically unrealistic.
She was following the party line of the
Catholic church,which has unwittingly caused
so much misery for poor people around the
world.
How old are you? I’m guessing either 21 or 52.
Pathetically unrealistic goals???? Party line?????
Well aren’t you supposed to aim high when you set a goal? It’s not a goal if you aim to keep the status quo. Give Mother Theresa and the Church a break, please? It’s almost laughable to hear such comments. What if Catholics started making fun of the Dalai Lama? Wouldn’t we be chastised by the world!
Ali: …but it makes me happy that she could have a safe abortion if she wanted to, for the sake of being able to give more of herself to her other kids
That’s so sad. Her children are losing a sibling. What if all but one dies in a tragic accident. He/she’s left all alone because the other child was aborted.
A place to take their children if they have questions about sex that the mom can’t answer herself.
Posted by: ali at May 14, 2008 11:01 AM
OMG ali, find another source of reproductive eductaion that will does not demean the beautiful life that may someday be your grandchild.