In a culture that’s big on personal hygiene–and really, who can find fault with that–we tend not to look at the spiritual side of life. But basics of moral hygiene must also be maintained.
Brigitte writes about ACORN here. A great little article.
As as aside, three cheers for James O’Keefe! He was the racist donor on the phone who caught Planned Parenthood happily accepting his money to get rid of black babies, and played the pimp who caught ACORN. Love that kind of chutzpah. And since the mainstream media ain’t exposing it, someone has to.
______________________
Brigitte adds: Funny, the first comment on that piece is from a dude in Australia who wonders why he’d never heard about this story, which neatly proves my point.
by 
Ever since I heard about the planned parenthood racist donation incident, I’ve wondered just how many times he had to call them before he found a telephone operator willing to say yes.
@ Siricou
Because having even *one* operator say yes to a racially-motivated abortion is not bad enough?!?
You have spoken before about painting all pro-lifers with one brush. Allow me to add some paint to your brush then – pro-lifers believe in the dignity and worthiness of life. EVERY life. That includes the black ones (and those of every other race, colour and creed). So the idea that even one Planned Parenthood staffer (by definition…a “pro-choicer”) is perfectly okay with funding even one abortion, specifically to kill a black child — well, we are unilaterally and unequivocally against that.
I realize that you have stated on this blog, on more than one occasion, that you do not consider all lives to be equally worth living. We do. You may not consider the abortion of one child, for no other reason than that they are black, to be repulsive, repugnant and morally reprehensible. We do. You have stated that you do not believe all lives to be equally worth living. We do.
So it matters not how many calls might (or might *not*) have had to have been made. One operator saying yes – *that* is bad enough.
I’d have thought if anyone deserves the one-brush accuser here, it’s those people who hear of one operator accepting a donation motivated by racism and concluding the entire organisation endorses genocide.
Suricou: Are you *trying* to be more obtuse than you are? If you look at the stories, you’ll see that there were several instances of Planned Parenthood representatives either willing to accept money from an obviously racist donor or hiding an apparent case of statutory rape. That’s more than one operator. Perhaps there were not enough instances of such bad things to satisfy you – I don’t know and I don’t care. But if you’re going to insist on splitting hairs with all who write and comment on this blog, be warned that I will not let you get away with anything. Understood?
And is Suricou familiar with the eugenics (racist eugenics) of Planned Parenthood’s founder? Does he know that abortion rates are much higher among Americans of African descent than Americans of European descent–and that Planned Parenthood has, at least in the past, exploited the situation? But going back to Cynthia’s observation–what’s your contention? What do you have against racism? Why is discriminating on the basis of mental competence so much better than discriminating on the basis of ethnic origin? You yourself support genocide, at least in the least restricted sense of the word GENOCIDE. And so does Planned Parenthood, not just in the United States, but in Asia, Africa, and South America. Killing children is their business.
Sorry, I’m addressing Suricou in all of my last comment, not Cynthia.
“Perhaps there were not enough instances of such bad things to satisfy you”
It’d take a lot of ‘instances’ to satisfy me. What I want is a ratio – someone I can trust who could have called a statistically sufficient number of times, and then said what percentage of donations were accepted.
I don’t see how that can be done now though – it’s too late, PP will have made sure all their operators are warned about such calls.
I don’t mind sting operations, I just want them to be properly documented and conducted by dependable, trustworthy people.
Just assume, hypothetically, that PP reports, say, 95% of statutory rape cases, the remainder due to human error or misguided judgement of receptionists. 95% is quite high. But a sting operation targeting a hundred clinics could still produce five stories about how PP allows rapists to go free, while the sting organisers never reveal that for every successful fake-rape they got away with, nineteen times they had to explain to the police what they were up to. It’s just too easy to do something like this. Espicially if it’s with phone calls, when one person could make, by my calculations, 720 calls in a single week if they gave twelve hours a day to the project.
This is why an absolute number is almost worthless to me. I demand to know not just how many donations were accepted or coverups made, but out of how many attempts.
I also note that in the case of the racially-motivated donations, I doubt the donation would have actually been tagged for racial targeting :>
Jon: Rather than address that here, I refer you to an entry I made on the subject in my own blog. I tend to be a bit more hostile in my presentation there, as it’s largely a place to let off steam, but the criticisms remain valid. http://moronality.blogspot.com/2009/09/frc-is-still-using-genocide-line.html
The only points I didn’t address there are the eugenics policies of the founder and the location of the clinics. To which the answers respectively are ‘yes, but that was a long time ago, and there is no evidence the organisation still supports these views’ and ‘it’s just common sense to build where demand is greatest.’
“Why is discriminating on the basis of mental competence so much better than discriminating on the basis of ethnic origin?”
I’d have thought that obvious. There is no rational justification for it, except for some very specific medical purposes.
Suricou: Thank you. You’ve just given us an excellent reason to dismiss you as (in language I get from my ancestors) someone who speaks with a forked tongue. On the one hand you defend unspeakable behaviour because you’re not sure how many phone calls it took to get those on tape and besides, you doubt the donations would have actually been tagged for racial targeting. But before that, apropos something else, you said:
“I think the first problem you’ve got is that us pro-choicers don’t consider you [pro-lifers] trustworthy. Your motivations are suspect, because pro-life campaigners tend also to support things like abstinance-only education, stricter prohibition of pornography, prohibiting gay marriage and so on that combine to make you look like sex-hating puritans. I’m not saying that’s an accurate view, but it is a widespread one, and before pro-choicers are going to even consider any arguments you make they will just dismiss and ignore you because of this impression.”
So behaviour you disapprove of must be addressed by pro-lifers before you’re going to grace them with your trust, even though, by your own account, your view of pro-lifers may not be accurate. But clear expressions of actual racism (i.e. not objecting when someone says there are too many black babies) on the part of employees of an organization with clear racist origins can be dismissed because we don’t really know how many phone calls it took to catch them and besides, those awful Sanger quotes are too outdated for your taste.
You can keep your trust.
Suricou, what are those “very specific medical purposes” on which there is “rational justification” for “discriminating on the basis of mental competence”? Perhaps one of them is prenatal dismemberment? And this is the practice of medicine (a “medical purpose”)?
On September 16 at 6:43 am on this site, you had responded to my question, “Why do you believe in discrimination on the basis of age but not on the basis of sex?” You had responded in this way: “I was actually discriminating on the basis of mental capability – it’s the only consistant means I can find to grant moral value to humans, but not to most animals… I value mind. Not meat. No mind, no value. Just a bag of organs wrapped in skin.”
Again, why is discriminating on the basis of mental competence so much better than discriminating on the basis of ethnic origin? Very often, I think, those who justify the latter appeal to the former, e.g. Adolf Hitler, Philippe Rushton, and Margaret Sanger.
Listen to an excellent recent speech by Lila Rose, James O’ Keefe’s partner in the expose of Planned Parenthood: http://frcaction.org/vvs-webcast. You have to scroll through the list of speakers until you come to Lila Rose’s name.
Have you watched a new film out called: Maafa21? It is a well documented film which proves that abortion is racist. They show many many original documents and played video and audio to back up their claims. You can view the trailer here: http://www.maafa21.com