Defund Planned Parenthood

No, I didn't mean to imply the link never would have been found without the Nazis. In fact, I am positive it would have been found had they not delved into it. I was just pointing out that their discoveries and some of the things the did were nothing short of terrific, even if they themselves were completely abhorrent. And that was my point about PP. I totally get why you disapprove of PP, I can totally get why some others may likewise. But to use the argument about the owner just seems so... unnecessary, and also not to the point. It's like something you'd maybe tack on as a cherry on top, not something to use as a main course, if you catch my meaning. You're claiming that PP is killing human babies and stripping them of parts for profit. The fact that the founder may not like brown folks is a fart in the wind compared to the hurricane of your claims.

And yes, if I had a choice, I'd want the founder of PP to be Mr Rogers. Hell, I can't think of any better founder with whom no one would ever have a personal problem with than him. But, since that obviously can't be the case, I sometimes have to deal with people I may hate doing good things. And let me ask, if Mr Rogers really did found PP, would you then be OK with it? He was undoubtedly a fantastic human being, through and through. But we both know your stance on PP wouldn't change. That's why I don't understand your use of the founder. Like I said, it's a tidbit, a little thing to tack on to the foundation of your argument (IMO). Using it as a main course just doesn't make sense to me.

The reason I think it is important to point out the founder of PP was a racist is only because the hurricane force argument that the developing human person has the right to life and should not be painfully torn apart and then sold for money is somehow ignored by the liberal left. However, mention something about racism and you will have people shimming up flagpoles to tear down certain banners. Sometimes you have to use a weaker argument that strikes more at the heart of people who have confused values or morals. If the truth about Margaret Sanger has the effect that the truth about abortion cannot in some people's minds, then so be it. Hopefully the end effect is the same; the defunding of PP.

Quote: FrGamble

There are plenty of hospitals and community health organizations that were founded by good people and whose group have not been caught on tape being unethical, maybe we should send the money to them?

I'm not sure any other group receiving federal funds has received as much scrutiny as planned Planned Parenthood over the years. They've not only been scrutinized in every action, but every mistake or nuance of meaning has been used against them.

We should only hope every organization actually conducted itself in as open a way.

Their records are open, any woman who is pregnant could be a potential spy. Any person they hire can be a spy.

Amazing they can function at all -- as well as dealing with actual threats being carried out against them in shootings and bombing.

If you're defunding them, you're really just defunding information, not abortions and just leaving people even more ignorant. Would you be happy if when someone went in to planned parenthood, the first thing they saw is two offices? One would be a pro-life counselor and the other would be a pro-choice counselor. The person entering could choose to talk to one or the other or both, or maybe neither.

I don't mean to be disingenuous and say the pro-life person would be a trained choice counselor, in fact, someone like yourself would be fine.

Would that be good enough? I don't believe a person should be forced to talk to either if they don't want too, if in fact all they want is the medical risks explained to them.

edit- their records are open as far as patient privacy legalities allow. Speaking more to business practice and finance and information they disseminate.

Any organization that receives 500 million dollars of tax payer money should face great scrutiny. However the sad thing is this scrutiny is all at the hands of grassroots efforts trying to get the truth out and are often persecuted and ignored by the media and others. It takes many sensational videos to even have congress look into the practices of PP, why is that?

What do you have against hospitals and other health care providers that you think they do not have the same information as PP? I don't think PP has some monopoly on information regarding dealing with difficult pregnancies. In fact a group that benefits greatly from abortion might not be the best group to be talking to in regards to your options when pregnant. I think my dream scenario would be a neutral party that would just give you the facts concerning what pregnancy is and the development of a human person from conception on. Maybe offer an ultrasound and offer resources if the mother is in any type of need. You don't need to get into distinctions of pro-life or pro-choice, the facts speak for themselves.

However, this is indeed my dream scenario. The fact is our culture is so messed up and confused about the nature of sex and its purpose that the blood of little babies needs to continue to grease the ugly wheels of pornography, contraception, and the objectification of women. So sad...

Quote: FrGamble

What do you have against hospitals and other health care providers that you think they do not have the same information as PP? I don't think PP has some monopoly on information regarding dealing with difficult pregnancies.

Sure hospitals often have social workers who can give out the same information as as planned parenthood?

What does that get you?

I'm pretty sure you want censorship, because it really doesn't matter who gives out the information about options.

Quote: FrGamble

Hopefully the end effect is the same; the defunding of PP.

I didn't know that "the end justifies the means" was a biblical principle.

Quote: Wizard

I didn't know that "the end justifies the means" was a biblical principle.

When the means are moral and the end is moral than the commonly understood moral principal of the "ends do not justify the means" does not apply. The principal is true when people try to argue that they can do evil means to achieve a good end - that is false and immoral. The use of any moral and good means necessary to achieve a moral and good end is just sound practice.

Here's what I mean by creative bookkeeping.

For PP to claim no Fed money goes to abortions,
they would have to be two totally different
companies that had no financial dealings
with each other. What happens is, the Feds
500mil gives PP the freedom to use other money
for abortions. The Fed money makes it POSSIBLE,
which is the exact same thing as paying for it directly.

Quote: Evenbob

Here's what I mean by creative bookkeeping.

For PP to claim no Fed money goes to abortions,
they would have to be two totally different
companies that had no financial dealings
with each other. What happens is, the Feds
500mil gives PP the freedom to use other money
for abortions. The Fed money makes it POSSIBLE,
which is the exact thing as paying for it directly.

Well, that doesn't just apply to abortion. Any state receiving federal money frees up state money to be used in possible projects I or someone else may oppose.

If any legislator wants to go down that road, it won't just be a focus on planned parenthood.

Quote: Evenbob

What happens is, the Feds
500mil gives PP the freedom to use other money
for abortions.

Please show me where PP spends even $1 for abortions.