Home - List All Discussions

Race does NOT need to be Discussed

Allowing black abortion by NAACP is not racial.

by: theroo

Race is old hat, right out of the 1950's. Time to get over it. There'll always be a deranged small minority who believes a different race is to be impugned. But one party thinks race is what you talk about to get elected. Buckle up if you are a member of either group.
As in Joseph Phillips' column: America: Still Talking About Race, one of the things Obama said he was trying to do was change the conversation on race. Unfortunately, he has done the exact opposite. As an alleged black president, the country has race on its mind more than ever (even though Obama is only 45% black).
Racism has been charged so many times by one party that it's becoming worn out, like the old fairy tale about the boy crying 'wolf'. Representatives Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel have claimed racism is one of the reasons behind investigations into their dishonest dealings.
How about the time Obama used an alleged break-in incident to flash the race card by saying the police 'reacted stupidly' after Gates (house owner) was arrested for disorderly conduct. As the police report states, Sergeant James Crowley was a "police academy expert on racial profiling."
With anthropogenic global warming (AGW), it has been proven many Blacks will suffer more with many of the additional erroneously called-for expenditures. The $862 billion stimulus by Obama has put thousands (obviously including Blacks) out of work, raising America's unemployment to almost 10%.
Home sales dropped more than 25% in July. Foreclosures seem to increase every month. In Townhall - John Hawkins - 5 Reasons Obama's Election Is Bad for ...race relations, black Democrats put race first to elect Obama. It's no longer a surprise when black Democrats vote >90% (almost a monolithic block) for Democrat candidates.
Frances Rice, Chairman of the BLACK REPUBLICAN: National Black Republican Association E-News, discusses in one column Phillip Jackson's description of how Black America Loses Gamble In Electing First Black President .... Jackson concludes how "Black America has mistakenly traded the future of its young black men for a black president."
But the most shocking item is due to the decision of Roe vs. Wade. Since 1973 Black women have had 15 million abortions. Of all abortions, 37% are performed on Black women, even though they make up only 13% of the population. The abortion rate for Blacks is 3x that of Whites (White/ LifeNews). But during a recent NAACP convention in Georgia, why would the NAACP endorse a bill passed by the Georgia state senate that would make it a crime to abort a child because of its race or gender, and turn around and take the endorsement back?
It turns out the NAACP reversed their lockstep decision because it was not 'in-step' with the Democrat platform. Why would they care so little about those 15 million souls? If it was up to the Republicans, abortions would be outlawed, and at least 15 million more people would have existed since Roe. In an all-too-familiar move, the NAACP decision was not based on human rights, it was based on party.
In reality, most white Americans feel pride by following Martin Luther King Jr.'s immortal words, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
One wonders exactly what will happen if a Republican candidate, who is black, gets elected to the presidency. It will be obvious then instead of actual racism, Democrats really have only 'party' in mind. Maybe millions of Blacks will realize they've been duped for years by the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Unlike Phillips, one should not shake the hand of Obama, but a true Black who has ALL races in mind. Any number of black people would make great presidents: Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Shelby Steele, Armstrong Williams, JC Watts, Michael Steele, Star Parker, Alan Keyes, and Alveda King, just to name a few. But they all seem to have the 'wrong' ideology.
But has Obama's election changed race relations? "For the first time in 30 years, the gap between black and white income is increasing," says William P. Jones (Professor, UW-Madison Center for Humanities), who was part of a discussion panel called: "Taking Stock of Race and Racism: A Year after Obama's Inauguration" presented recently.
With some mindsets on race only, and not ideology, just what have we done to ourselves?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

reply from: Banned Member

Originally posted by: theroo
Unlike Phillips, one should not shake the hand of Obama, but a true Black who has ALL races in mind. Any number of black people would make great presidents: Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Shelby Steele, Armstrong Williams, JC Watts, Michael Steele, Star Parker, Alan Keyes, and Alveda King, just to name a few. But they all seem to have the 'wrong' ideology.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Star Parker and Alveda King have chosen to have seven abortions between the two of them.
They must be total racists if they're killing that many Black babies!

reply from: Shenanigans

100% of abortions are performed on human children.
I for one am not really interested in how much or how little melanin they have. Abortion isn't wrong because black women are over represented in the stats, abortion is wrong because it kills a human being (sometimes more, if there's a multiple pregnancy or the woman snuffs it).

reply from: lukesmom

In all fairness, it needs to be mentioned that Alveda King had two abortions and one was forced. She very much regrets both abortions and works tirelessly for the prolife movement.
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/alveda-king.html

reply from: CP

I agree.
I do not think it is a coincidence that many of the same people who are sympathetic to, or even openly supportive of prolife violence and terrorism, seem to be attempting to advance conspiracy theories framing abortion as a racial issue....

reply from: theroo

Spin--I guess you never heard about a 'change of heart' or 'attitude adjustment'. How unfortunate...

reply from: theroo

CP--I guess you failed to comprehend the column. Any abortion is seriousy bad. Blacks having 3x the abortions than any other race is really bad, and racist at the same time.
I don't think you are ignorant enough to confuse prolife violence (oxymoron in itself) with abortion being a racial issue. They are two different things entirely. However, if you are evil enough, you can meld the two together, as many have done.
I refuse to believe that someone actualy believes that someone could actually frame this as a conspiracy theory...
You should listen to this too, Shenanigans....

reply from: CP

Well, I'm not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion, since I didn't even comment on "the column."
Agreed. I'm prolife, remember?
I agreed that all abortions are "seriously bad," but I don't agree that black women choosing to abort at a higher rate than white women is "racist." I don't think you are ignorant enough to think so either (I could be wrong), however, if you are evil enough, you might imply that it is, as many have done.
You refuse to believe what is clearly true? Why does that not surprise me?

reply from: CP

In all fairness, I might add that Alveda King makes a pretty good living doing what she currently does, so it's not necessarily some kind of selfless sacrifice on her part.

reply from: lukesmom

Good for her that she has found a way to be compansated for helping others and fighting abortion. Many of us go through horrible pain and use that pain in a positive way to help others. Not a "selfless sacrifice"? Yea, I suppose the negativity she gets from the abortion industry doesn't affect her personal life at all. BTW, there are a lot of us who make a "pretty good living" out of serving others. Why should she be any different?

reply from: theroo

CP--You mentioned how Blacks having 3x the abortion rate as others was not racist. Without consulting any 'links' metioned, I could see how you would draw that erroneous conclusion. Margaret Sanger was definitely racist. She started Planned Parenthood. Any questions?
I didn't think anyone could be misinformed so badly as not to realize Sanger's intentions by her actions. Congratulations! You've proved me wrong again!
You believe this is all a conspiracy theory?!? I'll bet you believe that the whole trip to the moon was a conspiracy too. How unfortunate...

reply from: theroo

CP--And your point about Alveda King is..................

reply from: theroo

CP--your logic evades me. How does violence and terrorism have anything to do with framing abortion as a racial issue??

reply from: B0zo

Is it racist that by percentage more blacks commit crimes?
If blacks are choosing to abort at higher rates, who is being racist?

reply from: CP

Please do not assume I have arrived at my position on this issue without thoroughly deliberating over the facts. If you have a logical argument to support your position, please just share it. Simply declaring my conclusions to be "erroneous" is not going to impress me.
So are many others. What do you think that proves?
Yes. How would this lead you to conclude that PP is attempting to commit genocide against blacks (assuming that is your argument)?
Since Sanger is dead, how are her intentions relevant to the current agenda of PP? Also, I feel compelled to point out the fact that abortion was not a part of Sanger's agenda....
What? Is this Morse code, or are defeating the word filters here? I see no point in posting such an incomplete and therefore meaningless post...
I pointed out the fact that many of the same people who advocate or approve of anti-abortion violence also are involved in propagating propaganda that is clearly intended to frame the abortion issue as a racial issue. These people seem to believe that the end justifies the means, and that any action is justifiable in the fight against legal abortion on demand, regardless of whether they would otherwise deem those actions morally unacceptable.

reply from: CP

Am I to understand that the argument is simply that a racist founded PP, therefore PP is engaged in an ongoing plot to commit genocide against blacks? Does anyone honestly view this as a logical and well reasoned conclusion?

reply from: terry

I was accused of murdering my poor stillborn son, as if the pain of losing him wasn't bad enough.
That is awful, and if you tell me which thread it's in, I'll remove it unless it was removed by the moderator at the time.

reply from: CP

I take it I can now feel free to address the comment itself, right?
[Not necessary now, since it's been deleted. -mod]
Also, after rereading the thread several times, I see that I may have misinterpreted your statement:
I now see that it may have been intended as a question, even though it was not framed as one. I am now operating on the assumption that you did not understand my point, and were asking for clarification.
I don't think the fact that Mrs. King had two abortions makes her a "bad" person, nor do I automatically assume that, just because she is being paid to help advance the conspiracy theory (that PP is attempting genocide) automatically discredits her. I simply am not willing to dismiss the possibility that she is motivated by financial concerns, especially in light of the dubious nature of some of her statements. She may or may not sincerely believe there is an ongoing racist conspiracy to attempt to commit genocide against blacks, but two facts remain conspicuous here.
1. The conclusion does not logically follow the facts of the matter. Black women choose to abort on an individual basis, just like women of all other races, PP kills more white babies than black, Sanger did not advocate abortion, and the fact that racists (who were actually quite common in her day, as were many of her views) having been involved in the founding of PP in no way implies that PP is currently acting on a racist agenda. For that matter, it doesn't even necessarily imply that Sanger's clinics were operating to fulfill a racist agenda!
2. Alveda King is paid (and quite well, if my understanding is correct) to say what she says!
I think that, all things considered, it is fair to question her motivations. Her prolife stance doesn't make all her views unquestionable, nor does it make them authoritative. I appreciate that she is prolife, but I am less appreciative of her attempting to perpetuate racist conspiracy theories whether she actually believes them or not, and frankly, I simply do not believe that everyone who argues that PP is involved in a conspiracy to exterminate blacks actually believes the propaganda.
I am convinced that some have been duped, perhaps even most, but I sincerely believe that many of them are deliberately misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to combat legal abortion, and rationalizing this with the sincere belief that the end justifies the means.
I understand that this is most likely done with the best of intentions, and I certainly acknowledge the nobility of the cause. I have given the issue a great deal of thought, and frankly, it has represented quite a moral dilemma for me. In the end, however, I remain convinced that honesty is the best policy. I believe that legal abortion on demand will end only when we convince an overwhelming majority of citizens that it is an injustice, and that our Constitution must be amended so as to rectify it once and for all.
In order to convince others, our credibility is crucial. I believe that advancing conspiracy theories such as this one damages our credibility, and is therefore counterproductive. I try to stand as a voice of reason so that I am taken seriously by those I need to reach in order to accomplish my goals.

reply from: theroo

Spin--You ever hear of a conversion? There are many instances of a woman having an abortion, never realizing how bad it was and would never do it again...

reply from: theroo

Shen--Did it ever occur to you what Sanger's intentions were? They're well documented...

reply from: theroo

No Bozo, it's racist to discuss your intentions, and then to abort more of the Black population for follow up.

reply from: theroo

CP--From your prior posts, it doesn't seem like you deliberated over ANY facts. I've told you before, that facts are available to you as soon as I get your e-mail. The current Prolife Forum doesn't print any of my links.
Sanger proved though her writings that she was a racist and that she was going to cull the black population. I'm sure you have access to that info.
If you truly believe that Sanger was not racist, and you don't think that the overwhelming majority of abortions are done on Blacks, then you have evidently not ever researched the topic.
You also insinuated that a high abortion rate was NOT a racial issue. Give me your e-mail, and I'll prove that wrong. They're many bortion providers, but only PP has documented proof that they're doing it because of race. I'm not sure of the other providers.

reply from: theroo

CP--You need to understand several things. Many people CALL themselves ProLife, but they never include the proper CAVEATS. Such as...but I'm for abortion in the cases of rape or incest, if the child supposedly will have a mental problem, if the child will have autism, if there will be a known physical defect, if you've ever convinced someone else to have an abortion for some unknown reason...etc.,etc...
Another item, how can you accuse King of being PAID to advance a CONSPIRACY theory?? You have obviosly not seen the info that Black babies are being aborted at 3x the rate of any abortion. You have obviously not seen the written info about what PP says their real intentions are. Have you ever watched MAAFA 21 before?
It also seems very clear that ANYONE who discusses legal abortion as you do is nowhere near ProLife. Have you replied as to whether you fall into the aforementions categories of being ProLife/
Unfortunately, you always seem to refuse to answer any questions posed, that would allay all my fears. I want to hear some credible evidence from you. I have not. I want you to allow me to send info to you that will convince you of PP intentions. You have not.
It's also very interesting what you say you need to do to "accomplish your goals". We wish you the best, but fear the worst...

reply from: CP

One final thought...
It is possible to make these points without making it personal. I think that is a lot of what separates a valid point (or perhaps not so valid) from a "personal attack." It is one thing to say you do not feel a specific point is consistent with a prolife stance, and quite another to make specific accusations and direct them at a specific individual, personally. I try not to take disagreements personally here, but it's kind of hard when people make it personal.
All right. I suppose it is over the line, and should be censored.
I did, and as far as I can tell, I was ignored.
If I had, would that somehow make your arguments more credible? (hint: I'm male and prolife, just in case you're a little slow on the uptake, so I have obviously never had an abortion.)
You need to read more carefully. Scroll up...
Gee, I don't know why I'm still here, since you obviously don't read my posts.
First of all, this is neither any of your business nor relevant in any way to this discussion (in so much as it can actually be classified as such...).
Second, I already told you I'm a prolife male, and that I have never had an abortion!
*eyeroll*
The topic here was the claim that population control advocates had deliberately banned DDT with the goal of causing more deaths as a means of population control...
Yeah, I'm still not seeing THIS one as a personal attack. I certainly think it's valid to ask another poster whether they've had an abortion, encouraged others to have abortions, etc. If it had gone on and on, with you refusing to answer and the other poster pestering you to answer, I would have put a stop to it when it became harassment in my opinion. But it has not reached that point yet. I'm not saying you have to answer the question, and I'm not saying that anyone gets to ask it to you over and over like a broken record, but it's not at that point. It's still a dialogue, not a broken record of harassment, so I'm disinclined to censor any of that. Make your case for censorship of this one, if you want.
I answered the question the first time he asked (the last six words in my response were "I have obviously never had an abortion"), even though it was clearly not relevant to the topic at hand. He continued to press the issue, even insisting that I had never answered the question, despite my clearly having done so. I pointed out the fact that I answered the question, and he repeatedly declared that I had not.
He may have missed where I answered, but once he understood my answer, he immediately continued his line of irrelevant questioning, which I obviously interpreted (right or wrong) as an attempt to discredit my arguments by attacking my character.
I do not believe it is appropriate for anyone to attempt to make an individual the topic of discussion when there is no relevance to the topic, and I obviously question his motivation for doing so, but since this is not a clear violation of the rules of the forum (assuming, of course, that we are not to be confined to relevant points within a given topic), I am inclined to just drop it.

reply from: B0zo

I've seen him post here long enough to know that he opposes abortion, seeks a legal remedy, and does not make exceptions for rape or incest.
What more does one have to do to be pro-life?
I also question whether there are racist motives behind abortion rights.
So what? Right or wrong, it doesn't make me any less pro-life.
You're making this way too personal, and are becoming very irritating.

reply from: terry

You need to read more carefully. Scroll up...
Gee, I don't know why I'm still here, since you obviously don't read my posts.
First of all, this is neither any of your business nor relevant in any way to this discussion (in so much as it can actually be classified as such...).
Second, I already told you I'm a prolife male, and that I have never had an abortion!
I answered the question the first time he asked, even though it was clearly not relevant to the topic at hand. He continued to press the issue, even insisting that I had never answered the question, despite my clearly having done so. I pointed out the fact that I answered the question, and he repeatedly declared that I had not.
I do not believe it is appropriate for him to attempt to make me the topic of discussion, and I obviously question his motivation for doing so, but since this is not a clear violation of the rules of the forum (assuming, of course, that we are not to be confined to relevant points within a given topic), I am inclined to just drop it.
You know what, though? He seemed to miss it that "i'm a pro-life male" WAS the answer to his question, and when you did answer it directly, he immediately moved on to a new question, which is whether you ever tried to get a woman to abort, or something along those lines. He was asking you to answer the question, and you actually had NOT answered the question. And as soon as you did, he stopped asking. You could have refused to answer, but you didn't do that, you gave information that, using basic logic, would produce the answer, but theroo missed it until you said it for the 2nd time.
But you can't have it both ways. You are the one who said, in this exact context, that theroo was stupid. You didn't come right out and call him stupid, but that's what you meant. And if I'm going to be this picky about personal attacks, that definitely qualifies. But the point I'm making is, you can't on the one hand obviously notice that he was slow to get your answer (because you had never directly answered the question) and then on the other hand accuse him of pestering you to answer it after you had obviously answered it. Obviously? Not to theroo, at least according to your own assessment of the situation as it was happening.

reply from: terry

Sorry, LM, I know you're not going to like this, but I'm going to have to censor the personal attacks in your post to theroo.
As for theroo's "If you're really pro-life, you sure have me fooled" comment, that has already been removed from the forum, and so additional discussion of it, or response to it, is likewise not necessary. That being the case, the entire post above becomes no longer relevant, so that's why it was deleted.
If theroo or anyone else harasses or attacks posters in other threads, that needs to be brought to my attention. You cannot just post and assume I will see it. Then people post these "Well, I guess Terry just doesn't even care! Waaaah!" posts. Click "report this to the moderator" to report something out of line. Then assume it may take a couple of days for me to get that message and respond to it.

reply from: terry

Are you having trouble posting links? In the message dialog box, click the "http" button above the text field.

reply from: terry

You had better be prepared to back that statement up with quotes from CP indicating that he endorses legal abortion. Good luck finding those, by the way.
He tried to reply at last, but I then decided that the way you were asking the question was too close to a personal attack, and had to be removed.
Ok, you are not the pro-life police. I don't see any evidence yet that CP has refused to answer you, except when you have failed to understand the answer or when the question was not appropriate in the first place. If there are other instances, I am unaware of them. And unless you back that up, I'm going to have to consider it spreading lies about another forum member, and censor it.
Allow you to send him info? Do you mean you have tried to get him to give you personal contact info outside of his account here, and he hasn't given you that info? Is that what you mean by this?

reply from: terry

What are you trying to say here?

reply from: terry

You tell me, B0zo, is this over the line or not?

reply from: CP

Well, for the sake of expediency, why don't we just assume I was lying when I said I had. I'm not inclined to to attempt to prove otherwise, since I do not believe any argument will satisfy you.
Sanger's racist views are not in dispute here. I would point out, however, that while blacks were certainly included in her list of people she felt would best serve the interests of society as a whole by not reproducing, they were by no means specifically "targeted." (EDIT: I probably should have said "exclusively" here rather than "specifically.")
I also object to your use of the word "culled." Sanger believed that the mentally "unfit," the lazy, the "immoral," and all who might pass on these traits to their progeny should be discouraged from procreating, even by forced sterilization, but she was not an abortion advocate, and I defy you to show any conclusive evidence that she ever implied that killing any human being was a legitimate means of serving her agendas.
In Sanger's day, "Social Darwinism" (the mistaken belief that "social" traits were hereditary) was popular among many, and as a result, most people embraced eugenics in some form as a legitimate means of improving society. The theory was, of course, thoroughly discredited, and I don't think anyone still believes that personal traits such as dishonesty are hereditary. The point is that it was a common belief in Sanger's day, and even many religious leaders heralded eugenics as a promising means of increasing "morality" in our population. Sanger was by no means unique in her day based on those beliefs....
I have never denied Sanger was a racist, or that black women choose to abort at a proportionately higher rate than white women. I simply assert that it is not reasonable to conclude that PP is engaged in a plot to systematically eliminate blacks, specifically "targeting" them as a means of deliberately attempting to commit genocide against them based on the available info....
Back up the trolley. I did not say, or even imply that the high rate of abortion among black women is not a "racial issue." I absolutely believe this is a legitimate "racial issue," and certainly understand why blacks should be concerned. I said it is not "racist," as you claimed. All "racial issues" are obviously not pertinent to "racism," and just because an issue has to do with race does not automatically mean that racism is at the root of the issue!
The fact that black women abort at a higher rate than white women should concern us all, and all prolifers who are sincerely opposed to abortion should especially be concerned. Since it is black women themselves who are obviously freely choosing to abort, I do not believe it is reasonable to assume this is the result of a racist plot, however, and there is really no compelling evidence to suggest that it is, despite the illogical arguments to the contrary that are currently gaining popularity.
I've already made it clear that I am not unfamiliar with the arguments, and have examined the supposed "evidence" that is offered in support of them. I do not believe you can offer anything in the way of "proof" that I am currently unaware of.
I would certainly be interested in seeing any "smoking gun" you think you have discovered, but I would ask you to post your "proof" here. If there is actually "documented proof" that PP is operating on a racist agenda, I have certainly never seen it. I'm aware of the "stings" where prolifers have offered donations under the condition that these donations be used to abort black babies, and am also well aware that one may earmark their donation to "help" a woman of a specific race or other group if that is their wish, but this does not "prove" any racist agenda on PPs part.
If you have actual evidence, rather than creative conjecture such as the conclusions many have apparently drawn from these "stings," by all means share it.
What makes you think I do not understand these things? How are they relevant to this discussion?
Because she is...She is a professional prolife activist, being paid for her "contributions" to the cause, and she clearly has spoken in support of the belief that PP is involved in a conspiracy to eliminate blacks and/or is operating on a racist agenda. These are facts, theroo. My question would be "how can anyone deny them?"
You obviously do not understand that this is not in dispute here, and I assure you I did not lie when I said I was familiar with the facts of this issue. I certainly fail to see how a statement that is not true can be "obvious" in your view. I have "seen the info."
I said I am prolife, and I am. Are you calling me a liar? If you need to know more details about my position in order to determine whether I am prolife enough for you to call myself prolife, I would think you would wait until you have the necessary information before making any declarations or accusations....

reply from: CP

Please note the date of the post was prior to the posting of the new rules. The conversation continued after the new rules were posted, and I resisted the temptation to post any further insulting observations.
Like I said, I'm inclined to just drop it at this point.

reply from: Elessar

I personally think that you can attribute the high rate of abortion among blacks to the simple fact that the out of birthrate among blacks is very high in poor African American areas and that abortions are still cheaper than college educations.

reply from: CP

What are you trying to say here?
I mean that, in my view, even though the questioning of my prolife stance is arguably related to the abortion issue, it has no relevance to this topic. If we are allowed to discuss issues that are not relevant to a particular topic on that topic, as long as they are relevant to the abortion issue itself, then there is no clear violation of the rules simply by asking me to clarify my position.
I am under the impression that topics are allowed to wander to some extent (I believe you used the word "veer"), but understand that there is a point where a thread can be considered to have been "hijacked." I'm actually a little fuzzy on where the line is drawn on this one, but I suppose it is basically going to be a subjective judgment on your part as to whether it has become disruptive, or for any reason crossed the line and deemed inappropriate.

reply from: CP

You tell me, B0zo, is this over the line or not?
I certainly would not want your job. I've been in a similar situation, and you have my sympathies. No matter what you do or how you do it, somebody isn't going to be happy with it...and no matter how hard you try to be fair, you're going to have to make judgment calls. Somebody is always going to feel they've been treated unfairly.
I'll make my arguments, then accept your rulings as graciously as possible and move on. Please try to be understanding when we actually don't seem to take it very well, though, and I promise I'll try to be understanding of your position as well. I know your job is not an easy one.

reply from: B0zo

You tell me, B0zo, is this over the line or not?
I don't see it as over the line, but if this is where you're going to draw it, then I'll retract my statement.
But it's very insulting to see a poster continually harp at another one that he is not pro-life simply because he doesn't ascribe to a particular forumula or doesn't like the way someone's hair is parted. It's not just insuting to that poster, but to other posters who have minds of their own, and don't necessarily buy into optional arguments that concern the pro-life cause.
I know I'm capeable of crossing the line, and have done it many times in the past, but honestly don't see this as one of those times, but it's your call.

reply from: CP

This is certainly a valid point in my view. Black women do not only abort at a higher rate, but clearly become pregnant at a higher rate as well, as evidenced by their proportionately higher birth rate.
It should come as no surprise that the demographic who experience the higher rate of pregnancy also experience a higher rate of abortion. The most reasonable conclusion would be that the higher abortion rate is a direct result of the higher rate of pregnancy.
I wonder how the numbers might stack up if measured rate of abortion in relation to rate of pregnancy rather than by the race of the mother?

reply from: CP

You tell me, B0zo, is this over the line or not?
I don't see it as over the line, but if this is where you're going to draw it, then I'll retract my statement.
But it's very insulting to see a poster continually harp at another one that he is not pro-life simply because he doesn't ascribe to a particular forumula or doesn't like the way someone's hair is parted. It's not just insuting to that poster, but to other posters who have minds of their own, and don't necessarily buy into optional arguments that concern the pro-life cause.
I know I'm capeable of crossing the line, and have done it many times in the past, but honestly don't see this as one of those times, but it's your call.
I think that all that needs to be said has been said. I appreciate what I interpret as support in this case, but I don't really want anyone making this a bigger deal than it has to be on my account.
Terry is aware of our feelings on this, and I trust his judgment, so lets just drop it. I'm starting to feel bad about my part in making this a big deal.

reply from: lukesmom

got it and no need to apologise. Didn't mean to attack anyone and didn't think I was but that is why you are here.

reply from: terry

What are you trying to say here?
I mean that, in my view, even though the questioning of my prolife stance is arguably related to the abortion issue, it has no relevance to this topic. If we are allowed to discuss issues that are not relevant to a particular topic on that topic, as long as they are relevant to the abortion issue itself, then there is no clear violation of the rules simply by asking me to clarify my position.
I am under the impression that topics are allowed to wander to some extent (I believe you used the word "veer"), but understand that there is a point where a thread can be considered to have been "hijacked." I'm actually a little fuzzy on where the line is drawn on this one, but I suppose it is basically going to be a subjective judgment on your part as to whether it has become disruptive, or for any reason crossed the line and deemed inappropriate.
Ah. That all sounds about right. I wouldn't consider a thread to be "hijacked" if the topic went off on a dozen tangents, even touching upon some stuff that is only peripherally related to abortion. But if the thread went off on a serious tangent about an issue not abortion related, I can either let the off-topic tangential discussion end on its own, and then later excise the tangent from the thread (if it is swamping the thread to the point where the original topic is getting obscured), or cut off discussion (either by excising the tangent because the discussion doesn't seem to be ending but rather getting deeper, or by deleting the entire thread, if the thread is so far gone in one way or another that I don't think it can be salvaged).

reply from: theroo

CP--Not knowing that you are male, you still haven't answerd the question 'Have you ever talked someone else into having one?' It's a question, if answered, that will reveal your true 'prolife' credentials.
You made statements that forced on to wonder if you are truly prolife. Unfortunately, your lack of a coherent response was an answer I was hoping NOT to get...

reply from: theroo

Bozo--If you look at previous posts whether PP's actions are racist, just take look at page 4 and read KlanParenthood...

reply from: theroo

Terry--No, I'm not the 'pro-life police'. But I am co-chair of my church's pro-life group, I've been protesting on the street where PP had one of their clinics, I've assisted with Rachel's Vineyard, I've been to several pro-life rally's in DC, I've been to several 'Silent No More' rallys on the Supreme Court steps, I've listened to what Alveda King has had to say in DC about pro-life people, I've assisted with 'Shower of Love', and numerous other prolife activities.

reply from: theroo

Terry--It seems painfully obvious from this thread and others you written, that CP has tried to legitimize Sanger's answers numerous times, and never once did he decry Sanger's killing of black babies, or any other baby for that matter. PP commits 'legal' abortion daily...
Didn't you write a column on 'KlanParenthood' yourself?
You've seen where I've tried to get his e-mail so I could send info that would alter his beliefs. He has not given anything...

reply from: B0zo

I can understand that you could draw that conclusion, but I think there are reasonable objections as far as how things are today. I personally do not think they are out to get black babies, but are providing a "service" where it is needed.
I oppose abortion in all cases, and it doesn't make me (or anyone else) any less pro-life if they don't see eye-to-eye with you on the racism issue.
It would be unfair to say someone is not pro-life because they disagree with you on this.

reply from: theroo

Any argument you provide with any relevant info will go far in providing otherwise.
Blacks were 'specifically' targeted because they were BLACK. That defines the word "racism".
Sanger WAS an abortion advocate for the sole reason she thought their race needed to be 'culled'. Unfortunately, you cannot find anyone who will not admit that.
It's toobad you won't give me your e-mail so I can send you the entire topic on EUGENICS that I have.
You never said Sanger was a racist until now. How come?
When race has something to do with an issue, it almost ALWAYS means that racist intentions wer following.
Black women hardly are ever FREE to choose to abort. Try other factors like boyfriends, parents, relatives, morals imposed, and a miilion others. That doesn't include the fact that most PP facilities are located in minority neighborhoods, to obtain their abortion.
Yes, you've already made it clear that you don't seem to read the bountiful evidence available. I don't think you ever saw MAAFA 21--did you?
I guess this evidence wouldn't really be 'stings' if they didn't, in fact, apply to you. PLEASE tell me they don't!
I only brought up information about King, because YOU brought it up in the first place. Sure King is a professional prolife activist, because she finally saw the light. Hopefully everyone will.
I also asked if you were pro-life, by the actual conditions I listed. We are still waiting for your reply...

reply from: theroo

CP--but you were OK to post insulting observations before?

reply from: theroo

Ellesar--So let me get this straight. You think that the high abortion rate on Blacks is because they don't have any money to opt out???

reply from: theroo

So what are you saying CP? That the abortion of black babies is not an issue of concern??

reply from: theroo

CP--So what are you saying? That Catholic women, because of their higher rate of pregnancy, are a reason for more abortions???

reply from: theroo

CP--Terry has done a good job of moderating in a no-win situation. I trust his judgment, as well. I just wish more people would answer questions relevant to the issue.
It' difficult to drop an issue when you're never really sure where a person's coming from...

reply from: theroo

Bozo--A 'service' to abort is no service at all. You seem willing to settle for the "status quo". Ever wonder why we're in the mess we are right now?

reply from: CP

I do not feel obligated to "reveal my credentials" to you or anyone else, and I refuse to dignify this line of questioning with any response.
Is that clear to you? I have no intention of answering your question unless you show that it is relevant to this discussion, so please, do not waste your time pursuing the matter any further unless you can show that it is relevant in some way!
Please provide direct quotes. I do not believe I have ever made a statement that could possibly be construed as advocating legal abortion on demand.
I'm not sure what it means, exactly, to "try to legitimize Sanger's answers." What "answers," of Sanger's have I supposedly "tried to legitimize," and what were the questions Sanger was allegedly answering?
To start with, I don't believe Sanger ever actually killed anyone, even black babies. She was an advocate of eugenics by use of BC and sterilization, even forced sterilization, but to the best of my knowledge, she was actually opposed to abortion.
Are you really complaining that I have "never decried" the killing of babies? Are you saying that I have never once even implied that this is wrong?
I will never give you my private email address. Whatever you need to say, say it here.
Prove that Sanger ever advocated abortion....Where did you get this idea? She held racists views, and clearly advocated eugenics (like most people in her day), but rejected abortion as a legitimate means. She advocated BC and sterilization. I do not defend the views she actually held, nor do I defend the practice of abortion, but I do object to claims that she was an abortion advocate.
Are you implying that the majority of black women who abort are forced or coerced? Can you back up that claim? Show us how you arrived at this conclusion. What makes you think any more pressure is exerted on black women to abort than white women. (And even if you could, would this prove there is a racist conspiracy being carried out by PP in order to kill off blacks, specifically?)
What is this supposed to mean? For the record, I have had nothing to do with any of these "stings" where people have tried to implicate PP in a racist plot against blacks. What do you mean by "if they didn't, in fact, apply to you? You mean me, specifically? Apply to me in what way? "Sting" me in what way?
Please do clarify this statement! What, exactly, are you trying to say here?
How would you think these "stings" might apply to me, personally? Why do you constantly seem to expect me to defend myself, personally? Why does it seem you are intent on making this about me?

reply from: B0zo

You're making a unfounded personal judgement about me that has nothing to do with the discussion.
I understand abortion is not a "service" which is why I put the word "service" in quotes. If PP is in the business of performing abortions, then THEY see it as a "service" and if they are interested in making money, will provide the service where it is needed. Do you now understand my perspecitve?
I am not happy with the status quo, which is why I'm pro-life. All I'm saying is that I don't think it is a racial issue. And so what if it is and I'm wrong about it? I oppose all abortions regardless of race.

reply from: CP

So, if there is a PP in my neighborhood, I am no longer free to choose whether or not I will abort? If there is a PP in my neighborhood, I am forced to abort? I no longer have a choice in the matter?
Where is the feminist indignation at the implications of this gem?

reply from: terry

Ok, theroo. CP has already answered that he is male and has obviously never had an abortion. You have also asked him whether he's ever tried to get a woman to have one. If CP chooses to answer it this time, fine. If not, you need to stop asking him. Enough is enough.
And no, you are not the pro-life police. I'm glad to see your pro-life credentials list, because it's great to see someone so dedicated. But you are not the judge of the other members of this forum, nor is anyone here the judge of you, when it comes to who is pro-life, or who is anti-abortion enough.
If you want to argue about specific positions, go for it. But we have had, before you joined, many problems with huge amounts of time wasted on "you're not pro-life enough!" "no, YOU'RE not really pro-life!" "no, YOU'RE not..." arguments, and I consider the subject to be borderline. If it starts becoming a tangent where you're sitting in judgment of whether you think CP is pro-life enough, I'm going to censor that stuff. So please don't go there.
Thanks for your dedication to the cause, but I just need to make sure we stick to the rule about no personal attacks on other posters, and eventually, this sort of questioning can cross the line from "on-point response" to "personal attack". Just please don't cross that line, is all I ask. Furthermore, it is not advisable to post personal information about yourself online, nor to solicit personal information from the other forum members. No one has to answer personal questions about their lives unless they really want to.

reply from: terry

Ok. First of all, being pro-life is not a requirement to post on this forum. We have people who have posted here in the past who were HUGE fans of Sangers. There is no "Sanger litmus test" to post here.
Furthermore, frankly, if Joe Schmo is opposed to intentionally killing unborn children, then he is pro-life, even if he utterly worships the ground Sanger walks on for some reason. Being "pro-life" has to do with those yet unborn, not those already dead.
And as you mentioned, there is also http://www.klannedparenthood.com/ elsewhere on this very site!
Anyway, stop trying to solicit personal information from CP. If he wants to tell you about his personal life, or give you his personal email, I am sure he will do so.
Everyone also needs to realize that: sending a private message on this forum is pretty similar to sending an email, so you can send him information via PM or even start a private thread. You don't need his personal contact information in order to have communication with a forum member outside the public forum.

reply from: CP

I see no reason he could not simply post any relevant information on this thread. Frankly, my suspicions are aroused when anyone insists on using private email for this purpose. I'm not saying theroo has any ulterior motives or means to send me a virus, only that such requests make me consider the possibility. If asking for my private email equates to soliciting personal info (and I'm not saying it necessarily does), then it violates the forum rules anyway....

reply from: theroo

CP--I don't think I said you were 'obligated' to do anything. I don't believe I asked for for any 'credentials' either.
You did make some fairly radical statements, however. My questions were simply means I used to determine if you were really that radical. Your intention NOT to answer simple questions can tell as much about you than answering the questions themselves.
Statements you made about Sanger could easily be construed as support for Sanger, who does advocate for abortion on demand. I guess 'to the best of you knowledge' is incorrect because Sanger NEVER opposed abortion.
I never go off topic unless someone else throws a negative comment bringing that subject up. I am also saying that you have never dcried the killing of babies, at least in any replies in my columns. You never do answer questions--have you ever seen "MAAFA 21" or any columns about it?
No, never give me your e-mail. I fear I may know more now than I want to know. When did you ever prove that Sanger rejected abortion as a legit means of culling the population? You have my e-mail, but I don't want yours. Have you ever read any columns discussing MAAFA 21?
You seem to ASSUME that I meant a lot of things. Did someone tell you I meant what you wrote? Now you're really pushing the limit. You know I did not say that black women have more pressure to abort than white women. I said, as so many have, that black women have more abortions than while women,and that I believe there's a major racist reason. You didn't comment about the location of more abortion clinics being in black neighborhoods than others.
So tell me CP, would any of these 'stings' apply to you???

reply from: theroo

Bozo--You're judging me to make a 'unfounded personal judgment'? Is that what you did?
Didn't you bring up the word 'service'?
All I'm saying is, it's very bad to promote abortion. But its not only very, very, very bad to promote abortion, it's even worse to promote abortion for racist reasons.

reply from: theroo

CP--"FREE" was meant to signify coercion, either to signify a high degree or low degree.
You got that message, right?

reply from: joueravecfous

Actually, it would seem YOU are incorrect because she most certainly DID oppose abortion. It would behoove you to do some easy research before making such blatantly false claims.
From Chapter 10 entitled, "Contraceptives or Abortion" from Woman And The New Race (1920):
From her 1938 autobiography:

reply from: theroo

Terry--Be careful where you step here. I haven't asked CP that question continuously. I have stated that his refusal to answer actually tends to answer the question itself.
I don't judge others on this forum. That's God's job when we die. However one can judge a specific action to be morally just or incorrect. Just not what anyone's eternal outcome will be.
I don't plan on going to 'you're not prolife enough'. But whether people think it or not, it's very difficult to put a pro-life label on someone who would murder a child just because it has Down Syndrome. Maybe that's something that should be brought up more often. Or maybe we're scared to, because there's so many instances of this and others.
I think we DO need to stick to the rule of no personal attacks. You have the unwanted job of making that happen. I also agree that no one has to answer personal questions if they don't want to. And, as you know, what someone won't say can be as informative sometimes as what someone will say.
Please kep in mind that you make the rules, so if we want to post or comment, we have to follow those rules to the letter. But it is also a fact that your e-mail is not personal information. Your address, phone number, CC#, SS#, etc., WOULD be.

reply from: B0zo

All the prolifers here think abortion is bad and promoting it is bad.
All the prolifers here think that abortion clinics do bad things.
But not all the prolifers here think that abortion clinics are put somewhere for racial reasons.

reply from: theroo

Terry--A couple of other things. I never said that one had to be pro-life to post on this forum, nor a Sanger-afficionado.
Furthermore, if one is intentionally opposed to killing unborn children then that person is prolife. But that sign does NOT apply to being prolife if that person would kill or abort an unborn child that has Down Syndrome, is aborted because they were a product of rape, of incest, went through IVF, warrants euthanasia in ANY case, etc., etc...
Now that may ruffle a few feathers, but somone has to draw the line somewhere. If not, anyone can draw the line ANYWHERE. Being "pro-life" means keeping those from being dead that don't have to be. Just remember that.

reply from: theroo

Bozo--I guess many pro-lifers here have never read a column concerning MAAFA 21

reply from: CP

You claim she was an abortion advocate. I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion...You made the claim, prove it.
When did you ever prove she did?
And I said there is no legitimate argument to support such a conclusion...You certainly haven't offered one.
Yes, I did. It doesn't prove a conspiracy exists to commit genocide against blacks. There are numerous possible explanations for this, all much more reasonable than simply assuming that it is because PP is operating on a racist agenda.
Really? Please share what you have learned about me as a result of my refusal to dignify your off topic line of questioning (which I find to be personally offensive) with a response?
For someone who seems to be implying that not answering every question asked, regardless of relevance, is a reflection of poor character, you sure don't seem to answer mine!
I do not feel obligated to "reveal my credentials" to you or anyone else, and I refuse to dignify this line of questioning with any response.
Is that clear to you? I have no intention of answering your question unless you show that it is relevant to this discussion, so please, do not waste your time pursuing the matter any further unless you can show that it is relevant in some way!
Please provide direct quotes. I do not believe I have ever made a statement that could possibly be construed as advocating legal abortion on demand.
I'm not sure what it means, exactly, to "try to legitimize Sanger's answers." What "answers," of Sanger's have I supposedly "tried to legitimize," and what were the questions Sanger was allegedly answering?
To start with, I don't believe Sanger ever actually killed anyone, even black babies. She was an advocate of eugenics by use of BC and sterilization, even forced sterilization, but to the best of my knowledge, she was actually opposed to abortion.
Are you really complaining that I have "never decried" the killing of babies? Are you saying that I have never once even implied that this is wrong?
I will never give you my private email address. Whatever you need to say, say it here.
Prove that Sanger ever advocated abortion....Where did you get this idea? She held racists views, and clearly advocated eugenics (like most people in her day), but rejected abortion as a legitimate means. She advocated BC and sterilization. I do not defend the views she actually held, nor do I defend the practice of abortion, but I do object to claims that she was an abortion advocate.
Are you implying that the majority of black women who abort are forced or coerced? Can you back up that claim? Show us how you arrived at this conclusion. What makes you think any more pressure is exerted on black women to abort than white women. (And even if you could, would this prove there is a racist conspiracy being carried out by PP in order to kill off blacks, specifically?)
What is this supposed to mean? For the record, I have had nothing to do with any of these "stings" where people have tried to implicate PP in a racist plot against blacks. What do you mean by "if they didn't, in fact, apply to you? You mean me, specifically? Apply to me in what way? "Sting" me in what way?
Please do clarify this statement! What, exactly, are you trying to say here?
How would you think these "stings" might apply to me, personally? Why do you constantly seem to expect me to defend myself, personally? Why does it seem you are intent on making this about me?
I noticed that you have never specifically stated that it is wrong to kill babies, you have never specifically denied being a racist, and I could make a very long list of offenses that you have not clearly denied having ever committed! What can I reasonably assume about you as a result of these omissions, and how are these issues, as they relate to you, personally, in any way relevant to this topic to start with?

reply from: B0zo

And if we read it and don't accept what you think it concludes, then what?
I could watch a video that makes a persuasive argument that George Bush blew up the WTC, but I still would not believe it.

reply from: CP

Really? So what is the answer, then? You asked if I had ever convinced someone to abort, right? And you can determine the answer based on my refusal to dignify such an irrelevant personal question with a response? Please, tell us what answer is indicated by my refusal!
Are you implying that you have judged some specific action on my part to be immoral, unjust, or incorrect? Please do elaborate!
Are you implying that I would murder a child, for any reason? And are you the guy in charge of handing out the "prolife labels?" If I don't answer your questions, I don't get a "label, and in fact may not wear the label?" Is that it?

reply from: CP

And who could be more qualified than you, right?
You claimed that I have made statements that caused you to believe I might not be prolife, but you failed to provide the quotes when I asked.
Now, you say:
So, can I reasonably assume the statements you claim I made had to do with a willingness to kill unborn children? Why have you not quoted these statements? Surely you had some reason to single me out for your little "witch hunt?" I noticed you haven't asked all the other people if they have had an abortion, or if they have "convinced someone to abort." Show us the statements you claim I made that lead you to believe I am not "prolife!"

reply from: theroo

CP--Several links, which will I will write here, can easily be accessed through the internet. Have you read them?
1) [Maafa 21: Exposes Black Genocide]
2) [Townhall: Your tax money at work--Funding abortions
3) Abortion--Prolife--American Outreach Resources
4) Black Pro-life Organizations 5) Sandra Bullock adoption story Highlights how abortion industry targets...
6) Black Genocide.org llll the truth about Margaret Sanger
7) The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger
If one looked at those links, they could see 1) that the black population has been targeted, 2) that some Blacks realize this, 3) that there are numerous resources out there that say the same thing, 4) that you have 'demonized' King from the start, which could not be further from the truth, and 5) blacks have been targeted (by another source).
I have checked Sanger's record. Nowhere does she say that she 'supports' abortion. But that was probably smart because abortion was not technically legal at the time. If the above links are found and read, she was a major supporter of eugenics and genocide, which is a systematic extermination of a racial group, while eugenics includes the careful selectiion of parents, which could mean a number of things.
In 1916 she advised women to have a douche of boric acid and take quinine to prevent implantation. For those that don't remember, the pill, the morning after pill, the IUD, and a number of other items also prevent implantation of a FERTILIZED egg. Essentially, an abortion of a human being without the abortion apparatii.
And, you did NOT comment about PP clinics being mostly in minority neighborhoods.
That's too bad about you being offended with my comments.
My responses being 'irrelevant' sounds kind of strange when I was making comments about your comments.
No, I never have advised someone to have an abortion, I do not kill babies, take birth control, never have gotten sterilized, never have committed euthanasia, never have been involved with IVF, and I am definitely not a racist. I am a very conservative person, did not vote for Obama, never have passed on a computer virus (that I know of), I have never voted for someone who has done an abortion, and I never have cheated someone out of any money. And I have sex with my wife whenever possible!
I used to work for a chemical company, I go to Church regularly, and..OOHHHHH, I have had MS since 1998.
Anything YOU'D like to tell us, CP???
Ahhhh---Much more to come later...

reply from: B0zo

I have no doubt CP is prolife, mr. theroo.
I don't see why the incessant persecution.
And I don't see why there cannot be an honest disagreement about the racist issue.
What has convinced you will not necessarily convince someone else.

reply from: AquaGirl

oh my, this thread is raveling in all directions! The modern day Planned Parenthood is definitely racist. Just look at the statistics on where they put their mills. Have none of you seen Maafa 21, the documentary on this very subject put out by none other than Life Dynamics? Planned Parenthood has never tried to distance itself from Margaret Sanger, one of their mills in New York is named after her and I believe run by her grandson (not sure of that) and their annual award is named after her. Anyone in their right mind would undo all of this if they weren't racist!

reply from: B0zo

Do you think blacks are too stupid to get it?
Do you thing blacks are too stupid to understand they always vote for prochoice candidates and never for prolife candidates?
Do you think it's possible PP is just putting clinics where they see a need and where they get the most customers?

reply from: theroo

Bozo--Hey, you're starting to sound like CP. Did you READ the column or not??
I don't believe there's been a video made that Bush blew up the WTC. And if there was, I seriously doubt it would have been persuasive.

reply from: theroo

CP--You couldn't figure out the answer by yourself?
How was refusing to answer a question that was about being prolife 'irrelevant'? Do you think others haven't hypothesized a probable answer by your refusal to answer. Don't have to be a defense attorney to figure that one out.
Like I said, you can judge an action, just not someone's eternal outcome. I can judge that if you eat 10 burritoes at 10:00 tonight, you probably won't sleep very well. I can judge that if I charge my neighbor 20% interest on a loan that it's not right.
Wow, it can be dangerous to assume what you think someone is 'implying'. You don't do this often, do you?
I would guess that I'm not 'in charge' of anything, except maybe doing what's right as much as possible. One must realize the 'prolife' label means something. If one does indeed wear the 'label', and he calls himself 'prolife, he should also include the caveats: ...except if a baby is created by incest, by rape, has Down Syndrome, has autism, is a different color, etc., etc...
So if you're going to call yourself 'prolife', make sure you have the necessary 'caveats' as well. You do that, don't you?

reply from: B0zo

Give me a link, and I'll read it.

reply from: theroo

CP--When did I say I was qualified to do anything? You aren't making this stuff up, are you?
As you can see from susequent posts, I believe you can be prolife--IF you have added the proper caveats and conditions. Until you do, 'prolife' could mean many things. We should be a lot more specifi, don't you think?
There you go 'assuming' again. Hasn't that got you in enough trouble already?
You WERE singled out. I don't think there was a 'witch hunt' though. You made a lot of statements refuting my data, legitimizing PP, and discrediting Dr. Alveda King. I've been up close so that I can see non-verbal actions from time to time.
That was way over the top. If you read any of the copies of links I provided earlier, you might realize that it may not be a good thing to be so negative, to keep personal facts that don't really matter hidden from the public, and not to update your picture.
I guess when one feels attacked, he lashes out somewhat. Sorry you felt so uncomfortable...

reply from: theroo

Bozo--A link to what? I've already provided seven items that can be used to find the links I mentioned.
Prolife America Forum did not provide the software to give you the links directly. Of course, you could provide an e-mail. But they've said you don't want to do that.
Maybe the e-mail to another computer? Whatever you want...

reply from: joueravecfous

All links can be easily posted by either copying/pasting or using the 'http' button at the top of the reply box.

reply from: CP

Why don't you put all that on a t-shirt and go out and change the world?
You obviously are not even going to try to back up your implied accusations against me, and unless you do, you may as well just drop it.

reply from: CP

Actually, it would seem YOU are incorrect because she most certainly DID oppose abortion. It would behoove you to do some easy research before making such blatantly false claims.
From Chapter 10 entitled, "Contraceptives or Abortion" from Woman And The New Race (1920):
From her 1938 autobiography:
What? Do you mean it is not true that Sanger advocated abortion? Didn't somebody make a claim that clearly contradicted that on this very thread and fail to provide any proof whatsoever to back up that claim?
I'm shocked!

reply from: B0zo

I don't know what article you mean.
If you don't know how to post a link, just copy and paste the article here.

reply from: CP

Oh yeah? Well what if I ate 7 tacos at 7 o'clock? Didn't think about that, did you? Huh? Huh? So what now?
You lost me. How is this relevant to our discussion of Mexican foods and their effects on our ability to get a good night's rest? Huh? Answer me that! The personal questions you have asked have never been relevant to any of the topics we have discussed! THAT WAS THE POINT! I never said anything about my refusal to humor you being "irrelevant!"
Look, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, even though I sincerely fin it hard to believe you don't understand that my position on abortion clearly has absolutely no relevance to the issue of blacks allegedly being "targeted" for genocide by an organization that provides abortions as well as contraceptives and other forms of reproductive "health care" to women of all races at the sole discretion of the individuals who desire their "services."
The reason I refused to answer has nothing to do with having anything to hide or anything like that. I am prolife, even by your strict qualifications. I simply resented the implications of this line of questioning. When you originally asked if I had ever had an abortion, the question clearly had nothing to do with the topic, which was the claim that "population control advocates" had banned DDT in order to deliberately cause the deaths of black children in the interest of population control.
You even went so far as to imply that I was personally culpable in these deaths, despite my proving that DDT was actually never even banned for use in disease control in Africa! I assumed that your personal interest in me was a form of ad hominem attack, and that you were attempting to discredit me in the eyes of readers in order to encourage them to reject my arguments. In other words, if I admitted to having an abortion, I believed you thought that would show that I was one of the "bad guys" and could therefore not be trusted.
Of course, the evidence I provided was pretty much indisputable (I say "pretty much" only because you obviously continued to dispute my claims, even though I showed that the "ban" was entirely fictional, and that you had been deceived by dishonest propaganda), and if I were Adolf Hitler, that wouldn't have changed anything...
After I told you I had never had an abortion, you replied "that doesn't mean you never convinced your significant other not to abort," which only served to further convince me that your intention was to attack me, personally, as a means of attempting to discredit my arguments.
Your posts on this thread only reaffirmed my suspicions... I find the whole thing highly offensive, especially in light of your continuing to imply that my refusal to answer somehow constitutes an admission of guilt.
To be perfectly honest, I'm well past being disgusted by your tactics, and am now at the point where I just want you to cut it out. I'm still not going to answer any more personal questions. When I have, you have shown that it won't end there. I mean, you all but called me a liar when I said I was prolife!
Are you the kind of guy who can't admit when he's wrong? Now post some more nonsense that will convince me that you either haven't understood a word I've said here, didn't bother to even try to understand it, or are being deliberately obtuse...

reply from: theroo

CP--It turns out you were RIGHT. After a large perusal of Sanger's literature, she NEVER said she was for abortion. In fact, from a quote you posted, she said she was definitely 'against' abortion.
But reading all the info, you find out she said she was against abortion, not because of the moral implications, but because of the neanderthal method of obtaining one back in the 10's and 20's, and the likelihood of harm to the woman. It's all there in Wikipedia, a typical liberal bastion of thought.
She was FOR prevention of birth by the use of all kinds of contraceptives. It turns out that most of these methods ARE considered abortiion because their chemicals on the uterus make it inhospitable for IMPLANTATION. In most cases, the fertilized embryo is already there, it's just flushed down the toilet.
An abortion has already taken place, but not with surgical instruments. And if Sanger would have known the precision that abortions are done nowadays, she would have likely concurred that they no longer pose a major health hazard to the woman.
You didn't mention anything that AquaGirl discussed? It should be quite interesting that PP has never tried to distance themselves from Sanger. One of their mills in NY is actually named after Sanger.
Bottom line: had Sanger been alive a few more years, she would have likely become a PP activist as well as a major abortion activist.
Amazing how she distanced herself away from abortion when it was still illegal. And she always espoused methods to end pregnancies AFTER the egg was fertilized.
And you still discuss Sanger like she was a patriot!?!

reply from: theroo

CP--It turns out that DDT WAS banned in most places, including Africa. It's unfortuate they rescinded some of those bans, AFTER there were very few plants who made the DDT.
Go figure...

reply from: theroo

"MAAFA 21" Exposes Black Genocide---Sorry, Joureravcfous. No link appears. When the info is typed on the screen, but the individual refuses to read t because they can't read the 'link', what does that say about the individual?

reply from: CP

Prove that "in most cases, the fertilized embryo is already there..."
The scientific evidence doesn't appear to support that claim, but I'm open to examining any evidence you might provide to support this claim.
It would appear to me that, having been proved wrong in previous claims, you're just trying way too hard to avoid conceding that your arguments are invalid. Since your claim that Sanger advocated abortion was invalidated, now you want to rely on speculation, implying that she might advocate abortion today if she were still alive?
This is the same kind of stunt you pulled when I said I had never had an abortion, and you responded "that doesn't mean you never convinced your significant other not to abort." You can't prove your case simply by attacking people's character with this kind of unreasonable and irrelevant speculation, theroo. It's unfortunate that you seem unable to understand that.
Even if your speculations were valid, they would prove nothing relevant to this discussion...

reply from: CP

The African nations agreed to a ban on DDT for agricultural use only, and it never included a ban for use in malaria control as you claimed. I proved this was so on the thread in question...

reply from: theroo

CP--You have finally got down to the facts, although you probably won't answer!!! I'll get very specific so you won't try to discuss everything but the question.
Because we now know what the pill, the morning-after pill, the IUD, IVF, ect., etc., does to very young embryos, have you ever used a contraceptive, and can you see how that would not qualify you as being pro-life?
I estimate the chances that you'll answer the question are pretty close to nil. I guess I'll have to ask readers to form their own opinion...
Find another way to make your point. Stop making it personal. What another forum member has done in his/her bedroom is none of your business. You can make the same point without asking these intrusive personal questions. Ultimately, what another forum member says about his/her past is irrelevant to the abortion issue, because really there is no way to verify anything anyone says about his/her personal life, anyway, unless the person is famous enough to have reliable news sources documenting such things. Other than Mark, I don't think anyone on this forum is openly famous, and we are certainly not here to discuss Mark's personal life. So drop this line of questioning, please.

reply from: CP

1. Go to the page in question
2. put your cursor over the address in your browser's address bar
3. right click your mouse, highlighting the address and opening the options menu
4. right click on the "copy" option
5. place your cursor in the "reply" window, and right click
6. choose the "paste" option
Congratulations! You can now copy/paste URL addresses to your heart's content!

reply from: B0zo

I'm still waiting for your link to the article. I said I would read it and respond, but don't know where it is.

reply from: theroo

Bozo,
Here are the two links that should put you directly into the item I mentioned in the column. They are NOT highlighted, because I am still trying to figure a way to place the highlighted links directly into the reply.
CP has been good in that he tried to give me a way to directly include the link in my reply. It seems that a leopard CAN change his SPOTS.
I guess if one will not access the link through the internet, that definitely means something.
1) http://
]http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/movies/2718-maafa-21-exposes-black-genocide

">http://www.thenewamerican.com/...oses-black-genocide[/B
2)"MAAFA 21" Exposes Black Genocide
If you need anything else, just let me know.

reply from: CP

What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? Are you implying that I have changed in some way? I assure you I have not. In what way have I "changed my spots," sir? You say I have "been good," so am I to understand that you are implying that I was "bad" prior to explaining how to c/p a link? I don't get this at all...

reply from: theroo

CP--Darn, I was hoping you wouldn't try and overanalyze THIS. But I've been wrong before...

reply from: B0zo

I've read it and similar arguments and it doesn't ring true to me.
I think it's about providing abortions to those who want them.
Or do you think blacks are so dumb they are voting in ways to kill theselves off on purpose?

reply from: Shenanigans

Roo, Sanger was most defintely a filthy racist. There are various comments of her's that elude to this. Not to mention her distain for those of lower intellect and developmental/physical disability.
Yes, there is a good chance PP was started to cull the unwashed masses, not just the Blacks, but other "human weeds" as she phrased them.
However, abortion is now legal. No one is rounding up black pregnant women and marching them to the local PP to kill their black foetuses against their wills. Those black women, like many other white women, walk in their of their own free will, get up in those stirrups and allow their children to be killed. Yes, yes, someone in the woman's life may be forcing her - but it is not Planned Parenthood.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Roo's attitude reminds me of the kind of people who get fat, and then turn around and sue McDonald's.
I've never blamed Taco Bell for my "Nachos Bell Grande thighs."
(By the way, Planned Parenthood's biggest business is contraceptives. It's as if McDonalds offered cardio classes...)

reply from: Shenanigans

Exactly!
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice or whatever people want to class themselves as, I think those with common sense can agree that people need to start taking responsibility for their actions. PP, as much as I can't stand the abortion side of their business, is simply responding to a demand for something that is legal. If people didn't want abortions, regardless of its legality, PP wouldn't offer them.
Supply and demand.
And people need to stop blaming everyone else for their mistakes and just take responsibility for their actiosn.

reply from: faithman

Absolutely correct. All preborn persons deserve to be protected from the evil aggression of abortion.

reply from: theroo

Bozo--If you think Blacks are so dumb, that they're killing themselves off on purpose, then if you read the article, you still haven't understood it...

reply from: theroo

Shen--Sure abortion is legal now. But there's reasons why PP clinics are mostly in poor neighborhoods. There's a reason why 3x more abortions are done on black babies than white babies.
I'm surprised you haven't thought of an answer for that yet...
There is also a want for free money. But there are laws not permitting the taking of that money in most cases. Supply and demand does not make anything right.

reply from: theroo

Faithman--You still haven't answered the question of why Blacks are aborted at 3x the rate of any other race...

reply from: faithman

I could only guess. Maybe it is because they have a big Planned Parenthood target painted on their backs?

reply from: faithman

Self actualizing myths may come into play. The false science of evolution has told ethic groups that they are a race, but not only a race, but a less evolved race. Beat some one down with a falsehood and they begin to believe it themselves.
The reason the African ethic group does poorly compared to other ethnic groups from Europe, is that they have been told they are less than for SSSSOOOO many years, they have begun to believe it themselves. Self actualizing myths, upheld by a failed education system that promotes institutionalize racism by teaching the false science of evolution. You will never do away with institutionalized racism, until you purge the institutions from the evil false science of evolution. One of the most racist books ever written was Origin Of Species . It was also responsible for 2 world wars, extermination of native peoples, and the divide of ethnic groups all over the world.
It is also anti-American. America was founded on the presupposition that there is a creator. Evolution is a belief system for atheist. Atheism is a direct enemy of the US constitution, as is Evolution.
The Black community has no greater enemy than Evolution, and the spear point of evolution against that ethnic group is Planned Parenthood.

reply from: theroo

Faithman--I have never begun to think evolution is a reason for black abortion--even though evolution is a very bad theory.
Blacks are not an ethnic group emmigrating from Europe. I have too many black friends who do not believe as they've been taught from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson.
Evolution has nothing to do with it.

reply from: joueravecfous

The reason is, Captain Obvious, that blacks have 3x as many unwanted pregnancies as whites.

reply from: Momof4

The reason is, Captain Obvious, that blacks have 3x as many unwanted pregnancies as whites.
And that's no one's fault but their own. Abortion is not a race issue, blacks make the choice to have abortions just like whites.

reply from: theroo

Jouravecfous--It doesn't seen like you've read Maafa 21...
Momo--Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like you can see the forest through the trees. Read Maafa 21. You'll have all your questions answered...

reply from: Momof4

I don't need to read maafa21. I know that no one is forcing black women to abort. It's easy as hell for them to get WIC, Foodstamps, medicaid and, TANF. They abort because they choose to so no, it's not a black genocide, it's the black choice.

reply from: theroo

No, Momo. You don't have to 'force' someone to abort to be prejudiced against a group.

reply from: Momof4

Who cares if they are prejudiced? That is a personal belief. The fact remains that despite all the government funded options out there, black women choose to have abortions. Furthermore blacks are reproducing many times faster than the white population, breeding far above replacement level. There is no black genocide.

reply from: theroo

Momo--If you had done a little homework on why Blacks are having abortions at a rate of 3x that of any other race you would come to a different conclusion. If you had seen Maafa 21 you would come to a different conclusion. If you knew why PP abortion clinics are usually in minority neighborhoods, you would come to a different conclusion.

reply from: CP

You mean the reason some people ASSUME PP clinics are often located in "minority neighborhoods," or the "reason" people who support the conspiracy theories about black genocide insist the location of some clinics constitutes "proof" of such a theory, regardless of whether it is really the reason or not...
Evolution is itself not a "theory." It is accepted as FACT that evolution has occurred, and continues to occur. The theories of evolution are about HOW evolution works, the mechanics of evolution. There is no real debate about the fact that evolution is real. The denials of the willfully ignorant and those who unwilling and/or unable to understand and accept the facts of the matter are not taken seriously by anyone who is actually qualified to debate topics related to evolution.
I must agree that evolution has nothing to do with abortion or the ridiculous conspiracy theories regarding a "black genocide." To argue otherwise would be as ridiculous as the conspiracy theories themselves.
If you want to convince intelligent people that there is an ongoing conspiracy to exterminate blacks, and that it is being carried out by Planned Parenthood by offering abortions to women of any race at their sole discretion, you're going to have to come up with a "smoking gun," something it is obvious that no one has yet come up with.
Showing that various persons throughout history have been racists, including persons who were connected to PP, and that PP clinics are often located in poor neighborhoods, which are often composed largely of minorities are what are referred to as "circumstantial evidence," and actually do not prove anything.
Since the decision to abort is made on a personal level by the individual women at their sole discretion, it is going to be nearly impossible to prove that blacks are being specifically "targeted" based on race. It may be that the "services" offered by PP "target" the poor based on a presumed greater need, but it is quite a stretch to imply that PP is trying to kill off the black race.

reply from: Momof4

Blacks are also going to jail and using drugs several times more than whites, at my unit the population is 68% black, and they put themselves in there. Black women are aborting because it's a quick fix. Stop trying to cry racism when it's blacks killing their children of their own free will. [White people aren't] out to get black fetuses.

reply from: theroo

CP--It's so easy for you to 'assume' people 'assume'. You do like to put words in people's mouths, don't you?
Evolution as we know it, is NOT accepted as "fact" by many. Just because you might, doesn't mean by a long shot that it's fact.
I see you've ASSUMED that "black genocide" is a 'conspiracy' theory. Who would've guessed???
I guess you haven't seen "Maafa 21". It also doesn't sound like you've read anything about what's going on at PP. It's probably best if you don't comment on this subject until you do...

reply from: theroo

Momo--I wonder who ever convinced Black parents that abortion is a 'quick fix'? Blacks are using their own free will more than Whites? There's many more abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods than any other community?
I guess you'll have to do a little better than that.

reply from: Momof4

So are you saying blacks are too stupid to decide for themselves? White people aren't leading them by the hand to planned parenthood. You have no true basis upon which to argue, abortion is not a race issue, it's a human rights issue.

reply from: theroo

Momo--You like trying to put words into my mouth to, don't you? Many, not all, listen to the words of Sharpton and Jackson.
Abortion IS a human rights issue. But with Blacks, it's a race issue to.

reply from: theroo

Planned Parenthood Targets Minorities Like Tobacco Companies ...

reply from: theroo

Planned Parenthood Targets Minorities Like Tobacco Companies ...

reply from: theroo

CP--You know what they say, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

reply from: Momof4

So is crack also a race issue? Blacks are more likely to abuse drugs also, is their drug use also the fault of the white community? What about black abortion providers? Do you think some white supremesist is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to kill? This is ridiculous, if you want to end some supposed black genocide then tell them black momma's to quit killin their babies.
They have welfare readily available to them, they have state housing readily available to them, they have HUD vouchers readily available to them. We bust out millions in tax dollars to make sure they can get a hand out because the majority of our 2nd and 3rd generation welfare momma's are minorities with no interest in a hand up.
I get so sick of everything being racist, it's like we have to walk on egg shells and bow down to them while they lord the race card over us. They have exclusively black churches, college funds, charities, heck even magazines. Could you imagine the uproar if we had a whites only college fund? Or a whites only charity or even a TV station? Oh my god, Quanel X would be on that like stink on a pig. How many times have we heard black comics being racist toward whites? How often do we hear black rappers using the N word as a lyric? If they want racism to fade, they need to work on themselves and leave us alone. This rant will probably earn me the racist title to which I will roll my eyes because it's their only answer when the facts are shoved at them
Race and Prison
Race & Prison - Data
(2008 - illicit drug use by race) "Current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older varied by race/ethnicity in 2008, with the lowest rate among Asians (3.6 percent) (Figure 2.9). Rates were 14.7 percent for persons reporting two or more races, 10.1 percent for blacks, 9.5 percent for American Indians or Alaska Natives, 8.2 percent for whites, 7.3 percent of Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 6.2 percent for Hispanics."
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2009). Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-36, HHS Publication No. SMA 09-4434). Rockville, MD, p. 25.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.pdf

(2007 - prison population by race and sex) "Similar to men in the general prison population (93%), parents held in the nation's prisons at midyear 2007 were mostly male (92%) (not shown in table). More than 4 in 10 fathers were black, about 3 in 10 were white, and about 2 in 10 were Hispanic (appendix table 2). An estimated 1,559,200 children had a father in prison at midyear 2007; nearly half (46%) were children of black fathers.
"Almost half (48%) of all mothers held in the nation's prisons at midyear 2007 were white, 28% were black, and 17% were Hispanic. Of the estimated 147,400 children with a mother in prison, about 45% had a white mother. A smaller percentage of the children had a black (30%) or Hispanic (19%) mother."
Source: Glaze, Lauren E. and Maruschak, Laura M., "Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children" (Washington, DC: USDOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jan. 2009), NCJ222984, p. 2.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf

(2007 - incarceration rate by race) "The custody incarceration rate for black males was 4,618 per 100,000. Hispanic males were incarcerated at a rate of 1,747 per 100,000. Compared to the estimated numbers of black, white, and Hispanic males in the U.S. resident population, black males (6 times) and Hispanic males (a little more than 2 times) were more likely to be held in custody than white males. At midyear 2007 the estimated incarceration rate of white males was 773 per 100,000.
"Across all age categories, black males were incarcerated at higher rates than white or Hispanic males. Black males ages 30 to 34 had the highest custody incarceration rate of any race, age, or gender group at midyear 2007."
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and Couture, Heather, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 7.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pim07.pdf

(2007 - incarceration rates by race and sex) "Changes in the incarceration rates for men and women by race were associated with changes to the overall composition of the custody population at midyear 2007. Black men had an incarceration rate of 4,618 per 100,000 U.S. residents at midyear 2007, down from 4,777 at midyear 2000. For white men, the midyear 2007 incarceration rate was 773 per 100,000 U.S. residents, up from 683 at midyear 2000. The ratio of the incarceration rates of black men to white men declined from 7 to 6 during this period.
"Changes in the incarceration rates for women were more distinct. At midyear 2000, black women were incarcerated at a rate 6 times that of white women (or 380 per 100,000 U.S. residents versus 63 per 100,000 U.S. residents). By June 30, 2007, the incarceration rate for black women declined to 3.7 times that of white women (or 348 versus 95). An 8.4% decline in the incarceration rate for black women and a 51% increase in the rate for white women accounted for the overall decrease in the incarceration rate of black women relative to white women at midyear 2007."
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and Couture, Heather, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 8.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pim07.pdf

(2007 - incarceration rates by race and sex) As of June 30, 2007, the incarceration rate in state or federal prison or jail for men was 1,406 per 100,000 residents, for women 136 per 100,000 residents. The rate for white men was 773 per 100,000, for black men 4,618 per 100,000, for Hispanic men 1,747 per 100,000. The rate for white women was 95 per 100,000, for black women 348 per 100,000, and for Hispanic women 146 per 100,000.
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 7, Table 10.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pim07.pdf

(2007 - prison inmates by race, sex and age) "Of the 2.3 million inmates in custody, 2.1 million were men and 208,300 were women (table 9). Black males represented the largest percentage (35.4%) of inmates held in custody, followed by white males (32.9%) and Hispanic males (17.9%).
"Over a third (33.8%) of the total male custody population was ages 20 to 29 (appendix table 10). The largest percentage of black (35.5%) and Hispanic (39.9%) males held in custody were ages 20 to 29. White males ages 35 to 44 accounted for the largest percentage (30.1%) of the white male custody population.
"The largest percentage (35.9%) of the female custody population was ages 30 to 39. Over a third of white females (35.9%) were ages 30 and 39. The largest percentage (36.8%) of Hispanic females in custody was ages 20 to 29."
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and Couture, Heather, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 7.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pim07.pdf

(2007 - incarceration rates by race and sex) "At midyear 2007, the incarceration rate of black women held in custody (prison or jail) was 348 per 100,000 U.S. residents compared to 146 Hispanic women and 95 white women. With the exception of females ages 55 to 59, black women were held in custody at higher rates than Hispanic or white women across all age categories."
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and Couture, Heather, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 8.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pim07.pdf

(2006 - state prisoners for drug offenses by race) Of the estimated 265,800 prisoners under state jurisdiction sentenced for drug offenses in 2006, 72,100 were white (27.1%), 117,600 were black (44.2%), and 55,700 were Hispanic (21%).
Source: Sabol, William J.; West, Heather C.; and Cooper, Matthew, "Prisoners in 2008" Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2009), NCJ228417. p. 37.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf
p. 37.
(2003, 2004) "The racial disparities in the rates of drug arrests culminate in dramatic racial disproportions among incarcerated drug offenders. At least two-thirds of drug arrests result in a criminal conviction.18 Many convicted drug offenders are sentenced to incarceration: an estimated 67 percent of convicted felony drug defendants are sentenced to jail or prison.19 The likelihood of incarceration increases if the defendant has a prior conviction.20 Since blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites on drug charges, they are more likely to acquire the convictions that ultimately lead to higher rates of incarceration. Although the data in this backgrounder indicate that blacks represent about one-third of drug arrests, they constitute 46 percent of persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts.21 Among black defendants convicted of drug offenses, 71 percent received sentences to incarceration in contrast to 63 percent of convicted white drug offenders.22 Human Rights Watch's analysis of prison admission data for 2003 revealed that relative to population, blacks are 10.1 times more likely than whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses.23"
Source: Fellner, Jamie, "Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States," Human Rights Watch (New York, NY: March 2009), p. 16.
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0309web_1.pdf

(2002 - AIDS deaths in local jails) "In 2002 the number of AIDS-related deaths in local jails was 42, down from 58 in 2000 (table 11). The rate of AIDS-related deaths was down from 9 per 100,000 inmates in 2000 to 6 per 100,000 in 2002. Of the 42 inmates who died from AIDS-related illnesses in 2002, 38 were male and 4 were female. Those who died from AIDS-related illnesses were most likely black (31 inmate deaths) and between the ages 35 and 44 (21 inmate deaths). Over the 3-year period beginning in 2000, a total of 155 local jail inmates died from AIDS-related causes."
Source: Maruschak, Laura M. "HIV In Prisons and Jails, 2002," NCJ-205333 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2004), p. 10.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hivpj02.pdf

(2001) "In 2001, the chances of going to prison were highest among black males (32.2%) and Hispanic males (17.2%) and lowest among white males (5.9%). The lifetime chances of going to prison among black females (5.6%) were nearly as high as for white males. Hispanic females (2.2%) and white females (0.9%) had much lower chances of going to prison."
Source: Bonczar, Thomas P., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Prevalence of Imprisonment in the US Population, 1974-2001," NCJ197976 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 2003), p. 8.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/piusp01.pdf

(1999 - parent in prison) "Of the Nation's 72.3 million minor children in 1999, 2.1% had a parent in State or Federal prison. Black children (7.0%) were nearly 9 times more likely to have a parent in prison than white children (0.8%). Hispanic children (2.6%) were 3 times as likely as white children to have an inmate parent."
Source: Mumola, Christopher J., US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, August 2000), p. 2.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf

(2000 - U.S. population) According to the US Census Bureau, the US population in 2000 was 281,421,906. Of that, 194,552,774 (69.1%) were white; 33,947,837 (12.1%) were black; and 35,305,818 (12.5%) were of Hispanic origin. Additionally, 2,068,883 (0.7%) were Native American, and 10,123,169 (3.8%) were Asian.
Source: US Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File for states, Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the United States: 2000 (PHC-T-a) Table 1.
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t1/tab01.txt

(1999 - racial disparities) "Our research shows that blacks comprise 62.7 percent and whites 36.7 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prison, even though federal surveys and other data detailed in this report show clearly that this racial disparity bears scant relation to racial differences in drug offending. There are, for example, five times more white drug users than black. Relative to population, black men are admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of white men. In large part because of the extraordinary racial disparities in incarceration for drug offenses, blacks are incarcerated for all offenses at 8.2 times the rate of whites. One in every 20 black men over the age of 18 in the United States is in state or federal prison, compared to one in 180 white men."
Source: Human Rights Watch, "Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000).
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00.htm#P54_1086

(1998 - racial disparities) "Because of their extraordinary rate of incarceration, one in every 20 black men over the age of 18 is in a state or federal prison, compared to one in every 180 whites." In five states, between one in 13 and one in 14 black men are in prison.
Source: Human Rights Watch, "Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000).
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm#P149_24292

(1997) "Fifty-eight percent of offenders admitted under 18 in 1997 were black and 25% were white, representing a gradual change from 1990, when blacks comprised 61% of admissions and whites 21% (table 6). The racial characteristics of persons admitted under 18 had shifted more dramatically between 1985 and 1990. During this period the percentage of black admissions increased from 53% to 62%, and the percentage of whites fell from 32% to 21%. Hispanic admissions, as a proportion of all persons under age 18 entering State prison, have remained stable from 1985 to 1997."
Source: Strom, Kevin J., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-1997 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, February 2000), p. 6.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pspa1897.pdf

(1990) At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. had more Black men (between the ages of 20 and 29) under the control of the nation's criminal justice system than the total number in college. This and other factors have led some scholars to conclude that, "crime control policies are a major contributor to the disruption of the family, the prevalence of single parent families, and children raised without a father in the ghetto, and the 'inability of people to get the jobs still available.'"
Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., "The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment," American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 716.
http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/ap1998.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9699456

(2005) "When incarceration rates by State (excluding Federal inmates) are estimated separately by gender, race, and Hispanic origin, male rates are found to be 10 times higher than female rates; black rates 5-1/2 times higher than white rates; and Hispanic rates nearly 2 times higher than white rates."
Source: Harrison, Paige M., & Beck, Allen J., PhD, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, May 2006) (NCJ213133), p. 10.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pjim05.pdf

(2005) Of the 253,300 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses at yearend 2005, 113,500 (44.8%) were black, 51,100 (20.2%) were Hispanic, and 72,300 (28.5%) were white.
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and West, Heather C., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2008), NCJ224280, p. 21, Appendix Table 10.
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p07.pdf

(2004) "Offense distributions differed between sentenced male and female State prisoners. More than half of males (53%) were sentenced for violent offenses, compared to 34% of females. Among State prisoners, sentenced females were more likely than sentenced males to be sentenced for property (31% vs. 20%) and drug offenses (29% vs. 19%).
"There were also differences in offense distributions at yearend 2004 by race and Hispanic origin. A majority of black (53%) and Hispanic (54%) prisoners were sentenced for violent offenses, compared to about half (50%) of white prisoners. Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to be sentenced for drug offenses (23% of blacks, 21% of Hispanics, and 15% of whites). Whites were more likely (26%) than blacks (18%) or Hispanics (18%) to be sentenced for property offenses."
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 8.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p06.pdf

Due to harsh new sentencing guidelines, such as 'three-strikes, you're out,' "a disproportionate number of young Black and Hispanic men are likely to be imprisoned for life under scenarios in which they are guilty of little more than a history of untreated addiction and several prior drug-related offenses... States will absorb the staggering cost of not only constructing additional prisons to accommodate increasing numbers of prisoners who will never be released but also warehousing them into old age."
Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., "The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment," American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 718.
http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/ap1998.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9699456

(prison - racial disparities) At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. had more Black men (between the ages of 20 and 29) under the control of the nation's criminal justice system than the total number in college. This and other factors have led some scholars to conclude that, "crime control policies are a major contributor to the disruption of the family, the prevalence of single parent families, and children raised without a father in the ghetto, and the 'inability of people to get the jobs still available.'"
Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., "The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment," American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 716.
http://www.csdp.org/research/haney_apa.pdf

"The racially disproportionate nature of the war on drugs is not just devastating to black Americans. It contradicts faith in the principles of justice and equal protection of the laws that should be the bedrock of any constitutional democracy; it exposes and deepens the racial fault lines that continue to weaken the country and belies its promise as a land of equal opportunity; and it undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the criminal justice system. Urgent action is needed, at both the state and federal level, to address this crisis for the American nation."
Source: Summary and Recommendations from "Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, June 2000)
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-reco.htm
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00.htm#P103_18435

(2002) "Among jail inmates in 2002 who had ever been tested for HIV, Hispanics (2.9%) were more than 3 times as likely as whites (0.8%) and twice as likely as blacks (1.2%) to report being HIV positive."
Source: Maruschak, Laura M. "HIV In Prisons and Jails, 2002," NCJ-205333 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2004), p. 1.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hivpj02.pdf

reply from: Momof4

How is evolution a false science? It has been proven.

reply from: theroo

Momof4--Some people have a real race problem. Have you read about MAAFA 21 yet? There's an order form for the 2 hr 20 min movie that highlights what I've been saying. It's about 10x longer than your e-mail, but it's worth the see.
Of course, you could go for the website on MAAFA 21. That would even give you a very abbreviated synopsis of what the movie was. Have you looked at either yet? Please do. I look forward to how you think then.
Of course, racism can be very covert, as in MAAFA 21. It can also be very overt as in your statements about racism. Any present-day racism tends to be more covert than overt.
Please tell me you can look things up on the internet yourself, without having to revert to "links" like CP. With him, it's all or none.

reply from: theroo

Momof4--WHEN has evolution ever been proven??? And by who?

reply from: Momof4

Charles Darwin, 1871.

reply from: Momof4

Ok, I watched the MAAFA 21 Trailer which seems to focus on a bunch of long dead racists. What does it have to do with black women choosing abortion more frequently?

reply from: theroo

Momof4--Charles Darwin NEVER proved anything. He supplied a 'theory'. Ever hear of the 'missing' link?

reply from: theroo

You watched the trailer, but did NOT see the movie? Interesting. How do you account for more abortions being done on Black babies? How do you account for most abortion clinics being in Black neighborhoods. How do you account for racist Margaret Sanger starting the whole PP off? How do you account for all those secret videos of PP saying that it was OK to abort Black babies, and that the Blacks were a backward race?
Maybe I should wait until you actually see the movie...

reply from: joueravecfous

Yes, get your foil hat out and start waiting!

reply from: theroo

Jouve--I guess you're in the 'wait-and-see-what-happens' category too!

reply from: Momof4

Sanger did not support abortion, she supported birth control and sterilization. Abortion is done at only 1% of planned parenthood facilities which explains why they set up shop in poor neighborhoods, to supply all these rampantly reproducing poor people with birth control that they otherwise couldn't afford. How do I account for aborted black babies? It's simple, their mothers made bad choices. Now honestly, do you have any intelligent arguments? Even one would be refreshing.

reply from: Momof4

Guess what's taught in school today, I'll give you a hint, it ain't creationism.

reply from: theroo

Momof4--If you'd have read my column, you'd have realized most birth control IS abortion.
Abortion is done at only 1% of PP facilities? Who are you trying to kid? Abortion is their most lucrative business! Why do you call Blacks rampantly reproducing poor people? Do you work for PP???
Now why would Black moms make most of the poor choices? You obviously never listened to "MAAFA 21", and I don't think you intend to. Am I right?

reply from: theroo

Momof4--Let me repeat myself. When has evolution EVER been proven? And by who???
Oh, and another thing, does teaching evolution in public schools make it a fact?

reply from: Momof4

Yes, it is the accepted teaching and has been since even my parents were children. Furthermore it is the most credible.

reply from: Momof4

Why do you assume that because I say poor people that I am refering to blacks? There are plenty of people of every racial stamp that are living below poverty level in the US. And considering that planned parenthood makes more money on birth control than abortion you still have no argument. Once again, if you want to stop blacks from killing their babies then preach a pro-life message to THEM.

reply from: CP

Wait, wut? This from a guy who can't figure out how to post a link, despite receiving detailed, step by step instructions from at least two people, a guy who seemingly is incapable of grasping the most basic concepts? I bow to your superior command of the internet and the English language, as well as your obvious intellect.
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
">http://records.viu.ca/~johnsto.../courtenay1.htm

Here's a Christian site that I managed to find (without the benefit of anyone having to provide me a link, by the way) where you can read arguments that evolution is irrefutable fact from a Christian standpoint. I assume you are capable of following the link...Whether you will understand and/or accept the content is another matter, but I feel compelled to at least try to help you.
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/

reply from: joueravecfous

CP, your patience is astounding.

reply from: B0zo

Where do we see the movie?
Do we have to pay $20 to discuss this further?
I don't know about you, but if I make an assertion I don't require someone to pay $20 to see the source of it.

reply from: theroo

Momof4--Accepted teaching for some public schools only? If you know some of the facts, it's no where near credible. Your words, not mine.

reply from: theroo

Momof4--I'm not assuming anything. We WERE talking about Blacks. You can say I have no argument all you want. I'm sorry you can't understand it.

reply from: theroo

CP--I guess when I get some detailed, step by step instructions, on how to post, I guess I'll be able to. So far nothing.
And I'm trying to envision some guy out of BC that knows evolution is a fact. I'm sorry, I just can't envision that.
And who is this Paul Pavao? What kind of religion does he actually espose? Any credentials whatsoever?

reply from: theroo

No, Bozo. All you really have to do is access some of the prior posts on "Black Genocide". You have done that, right

reply from: Tam

Ok. I'm going to weigh in on this. I finally watched Maafa21 last night.
First of all, I really do not think that you need to see the movie in order to discuss it. But at the same time, you have to admit that if you are discussing it without having viewed it, you are discussing it in ignorance of it. It is really then a discussion that is one step removed. It is all on youtube, you do not need to buy it from LDI. I am sure they would rather you see it free than not see it at all.
Now. Here is my most emphatic thought following this movie: is there anyone who, having seen it, would actually claim that the reason Planned Parenthood aborts such a disproportionate number of black babies is a coincidence? I am not saying that the employees are racists, nor that the abortionists are racists. Undoubtedly, like any other segment of the population, some of them are racists and some are not. But is it true that by working for Planned Parenthood, they are helping to actualize a racist ideology? I say yes.
I really think the connections are too plain to refute. I already thought the whole thing seemed fishy BEFORE I saw the racism in it. Having seen it, I find the most compelling assertion to be that if not for slavery having happened in this country, abortion would not have been legalized. I think there is an excellent case made for that assertion, and it's made over the course of 2 1/2 hours in that movie.
So really, having an opinion about it without having watched the movie is like having an opinion about a court verdict without having heard the case being presented. Have your opinion, but realize that it isn't going to be taken very seriously by anyone who actually heard the case being presented, and was persuaded by the arguments presented. This is especially true in light of the fact that you can watch it free on youtube, so that eliminates the most compelling reason people have for not having seen it. Clearly you have internet. :-)
I found it very persuasive, so if anyone has any legitimate counterargument (by legitimate, I mean something other than "I'm just not buying it, I think it's a big coinkydink"), I am keen to hear it.

reply from: Tam

Think about it: if it's even a LITTLE BIT true, that PP was created to commit genocide against the black people of America--if that is even a LITTLE BIT true, isn't that something worth finding out more about, and doing something about it? And what if it is more than a little bit true? What if it turns out to be VERY true? Then what?

reply from: joueravecfous

If out of 1.2 million annual abortions, PP only does 305,000 of them, then clearly the "racial" problem lies elsewhere.

reply from: Tam

That is nonsense. In other words, it has no basis in logic. It is like saying "Out of 30 types of fruit in that store, only 4 are apples, so clearly the sky is green." Absolute nonsense. Just because you threw some facts in, and put them into a well-structured sentence, does not make what you said any less nonsensical.

reply from: theroo

Tam--Thanks for your well thought-out reply. It made a lot of sense. I didn't know about the movie being available on YOU TUBE. I guess the 'nonbelievers' all have a route to seeing the movie without paying any bucks to do it. I wonder how many actually will.
I also agreed with your response to joueravecfous. Closer to 1.4 million abortions per year, jouer failed to mention that PP actually performs the most abortions of any other clinic.
Keep up the good work.

reply from: joueravecfous

If the number was actually 1.4 million then the percentage of PP abortions goes down, Einstein.
Feel free to post a source for your claims, if you can. Otherwise, your numbers will be disregarded.

reply from: CP

Well, isn't that just the "kiss of death?" Tam has theroo's hearty endorsement!
Tam, do you not also consider David Icke's arguments that a race of reptilian aliens is secretly controlling the earth to be "compelling?" Do you believe there might be "just a little truth" to his claims regarding the shape shifting lizard people from the fourth dimension? It is true that many find Icke's "theories" to be "compelling," but not necessarily because they are reasonable! He meticulously ties so many issues together that those who really want to believe easily convince themselves to do so, but he actually provides no real evidence to support his conclusions. The same is true of the PP and black genocide conspiracy theory... There simply is NO "smoking gun," only creative conjecture.
And what is "just a little truth" supposed to mean anyway? The claims that PP is actively engaged in a conspiracy to commit genocide against blacks is either true, or it is not! It can not be "a little" true and "a little" false, can it?
So, are you telling us that you are convinced PP is deliberately carrying out a "black genocide," or not?
But if Joueravecfou had been claiming the black genocide conspiracy theory was valid, then it would?
Isn't that really how the whole argument is advanced, by "throwing in a few facts" in well structured sentences, but providing no actual evidence?
"Feel free to post a source for your claims"
"source for your claims"
What a novel concept! Good luck getting theroo to actually post proof of anything he says... Probably the best you can hope for is a link to a blog written by some idiot who makes stuff up as s/he goes. (Oh, wait, theroo claims he is unable to master the advanced computer skills like copying and pasting URL addresses, doesn't he?)

reply from: Tam

That's what I thought. Ad hominem attacks with no legitimate counterargument WHATSOEVER, just a bunch of hot air.

reply from: CP

What substance is required in response to an argument that itself has no substance? You haven't provided any proof, nor has theroo, so would it be fair to say that I have actually been responding to "hot air?"
Your ploy seems to be to plant a seed of doubt...It seems that you are suggesting that it might be true, so it should be taken seriously. Sorry, but unless someone is inclined to choose to believe whatever is most attractive to them, or what they feel best serves their agendas, regardless of whether it is even likely true, they can not possibly convince themselves that PP is engaged in a conspiracy to deliberately exterminate the black race.

reply from: CP

No response to this, just "hot air," huh?
"What if it's a little bit true?" "What if it's very true?" Give me a break...

reply from: theroo

Joue--I figured that 13.7 million rounds up to 14 million. You understood that, right?
Actually all this is small potatoes to the amount of children aborted by an inhospitable uterus. I guess you could do a calculation on this, but the number of babies aborted worldwide because of contraception has GOT to be in the millions worldwide.
I wouldn't worry about CP, Tam. He's scared to death about all those babies that might have been aborted due to a inhospitable uterus. He'll come around.
I guess you failed on that attempt to say the % went down for PP. They still are responsible for the vast majority of abortions in the states compared to all other abortion providers.
I guess we never discussed just how many abortions PP actually does, but never get reported. We may never know exactly how many, but they exist.

reply from: theroo

CP-let us know when you view "Black Genocide, MAAFA 21", OK?

reply from: joueravecfous

No. I don't know what you're talking about. What is 13.7 million?

reply from: Momof4

There is no black genocide and frankly this has gone from faintly amusing to just idiotic. Blacks are reproducing 3x as much as whites and well beyond replacement level, there is no shortage of black people. This MAAFA 21 thing is a total crock. Abortion is not a race issue, all races abort and if black women are more likely to abort whose fault is that? Give up the ghost, you're being argued into the ground.

reply from: Momof4

BTW, Next time you want to say that abortion's ultimate goal is black genocide, you should look up Alice Faye Wattleton. She was a president of Planned Parenthood in 1943 and, here's the shocker..she was black. Obama, our president and a huge supporter of abortion rights, is black. Are these people self hating blacks?

reply from: theroo

Momo--You tell the staff of this website that MAAFA 21 is a 'crock'. Better yet, why don't you tell the leader, Mark Crutcher, it's a croc. See how far you'll go.
The instigator and leader of PP was Margaret Sanger, and she WASN'T black, but was an avowed racist. Obama might look black, but is only 45% black. Think, now why would Obama be such an ardent supporter of PP? Any guesses?

reply from: Momof4

Ok, I went on youtube and found the movie, watched all 14 parts and can say with conviction that it was the biggest crock of feces I'd seen in many many years. Furthermore, yes Faye Wattleton was black. Barack Obama is bi-racial but bi-racial folk are usually just considered black. So, care to back peddle anymore?
Faye Wattleton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Faye Wattleton
Born July 8, 1943 (1943-07-08) (age 67)
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Occupation Feminist activist
Author and regular news commentator.
Faye Wattleton (born Alyce Faye Wattleton; July 8, 1943) is the first African-American and youngest President ever elected to Planned Parenthood (1978 - 1992). Currently, she serves as the President of the Center for the Advancement of Women, and also serves on the board of trustees at Columbia University. She is best known for her contributions to the family planning and reproductive health, as well as the pro-choice movement.
Wattleton was born in St. Louis, Missouri in 1943, the only child of a factory worker father and a mother who was a seamstress and a Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) minister. Entering Ohio State University at age 17, she was awarded a bachelor's degree in nursing in 1964, and went on to teach at a nursing school in Dayton, Ohio for two years. She earned her Master of Science degree in maternal and infant care, with certification as a nurse-midwife from Columbia University in 1967. She has received 13 honorary doctoral degrees.
In 1986, the American Humanist Association named her Humanist of the Year.
She was a 1993 inductee into the National Women's Hall of Fame
[edit] References
FayeWattleton.com. (2009). Faye Wattleton's Website.
Faye Wattleton Bio. (2007). Center for the Advancement of Women - President Bio. Retrieved June 14, 2007.
"Wattleton, Faye". (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved June 4, 2007.
"The Trustees: Faye Wattleton." (n.d.). Columbia University. Retrieved June 4, 2007.
"Faye Wattleton Biography." (2007). About.com: Women's History. Retrieved June 4, 2007.
"Alyce Faye Wattleton Biography." (n.d.). The HistoryMakers. Retrieved June 4, 2007.
Green, Jesse. (December 2001). "Faye Wattleton And Felicia Gordon - mothers and daughters." O: The Oprah Magazine. Retrieved June 4, 2007.
"Featured Speakers: Faye Wattleton." (n.d.). The Fischer Ross Group. Retrieved June 4, 2007.
Interview on Hillary Clinton and Obama
This biographical article about a women's rights activist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

reply from: theroo

Momo--Did you tell Mark Crutcher, and the rest, what you just said? Probably not.
And no one has told me the significance of someone in PP being black!?!? Yes, many consider Obama to be a Black man, but in actuality he's not.
Now what would make a black person (or even someone who thinks he's black) want to kill over 3X as many Blacks by abortion as any other race?
Why would any person want PP to continue the killing off of their race? You didn't answer the question before. So who's back-pedaling?

reply from: Momof4

I dunno, why don't you find Faye Wattleton and ask her why she took such an interest in killing off minorities, they even mentioned her in MAAFA 21. Mark Crutcher, also known on this forum as MC3 can read my opinion of his work whenever he wants, I don't really care if my opinion pisses him off. The fact is is that abortion is not aimed at blacks, before it was legal white women were aborting more because they were more likely to be able to afford it. MAAFA 21 is nothing more than a desperate reach to further demonize abortion by calling it racist. It doesn't have to be racist to be awful, it is an injustice to humanity which goes beyond race, religion or, ethnicity.

reply from: Tam

I don't know what you mean. I forget which of you is on which side of that issue. LOL Anyway, I am not worried, just bored. Wish someone would at least come up with a counterargument so we could debate it.
Example. There is no proof that smoking causes lung cancer. But is anyone really naive enough to believe that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer? There is clearly a link, and there is ample proof of that. There is no "smoking gun" to prove direct causation, but that is because of a LACK of information, not because there is a sufficient body of CONTRADICTORY information. The same thing is true here.
That there is a LINK is clear enough. It's what that link means that is being debated (or WOULD be being debated if anyone ever bothered to post a rational counterargument). Some believe that the link means nothing! Just old-fashioned thinking that has long ago been obsolete. Others think that the link actually means what it appears to mean: that regardless of the facade we see today, the foundations of PP are blatantly racist foundations, and that to claim that these racist foundations are not having an effect today is more than naive, it is profoundly disingenuous.
Of course there is no video evidence of Sanger having conversations off the record with known eugenicists like herself, and what may have been said there. And, as everyone knows, a view of "we want to exterminate the Negro population" would have been extremely unpopular at that time, because people were waking up fast to the human rights violations taking place against the black people in America then.
Does the fact that the culture was becoming less racist mean that a particularly racist individual (Sanger) was also becoming less racist along with it? It's certainly possible. Some people do indeed change their views when they realize how unethical those views are. Others, however, try to change not the ACTUAL GOALS but the PERCEIVED GOALS of their efforts, so that they can continue to pursue their egregiously unethical goals under the facade of providing charitable assistance where it's needed most.
I'm just saying that if an individual racist founds an organization that is STUNNINGLY effective at achieving a very racist goal, it is highly unlikely to be one big coinkydink, even if the culture as a whole has made steady progress toward racial equality. I am saying that I personally think (and I'll change my mind if anyone proves this wrong!) that the link between PP and eugenics is far too strong to be ignored as irrelevant coincidence in this enlightened modern age of racial equality.
In case no one has noticed, we have NOT achieved racial equality, there is still plenty of racism in our 2010 American society, and plenty of sexism as well. So who was victimized here? Minority women. Big surprise. I just find it astonishing that anyone can look at those links and say "oh big deal, that was then, this is now" as though this evil has been eradicated from our world. People do realize that the KKK still exists, right? You remember the KKK, where Margaret Sanger was so popular, right?

reply from: CP

But is it actually "STUNNINGLY effective," or is that just a load of manure being fed to the public? Are you implying that this alleged conspiracy to exterminate the black race is actually working? If so, you really need to make an effort to get all the facts, not just cherry pick the ones you like...
I'll just C/P my response from your lizard man thread...
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=34&threadid=9400&enterthread=y
">http://www.prolifeamerica.com/...0&enterthread=y
Well, how about pro0viding some facts that prove you're right?
You provided facts that you believe support your convictions, just as I can give you facts that encourage me to disregard your conclusions as delusional.
FACT: PP doesn't force any woman to abort. Abortions are provided to women at their sole discretion, regardless of race.
FACT: More white women abort than any other race.
Sure, I understand that black women abort at a higher rate by percentage of population, but they also experience pregnancy at a higher rate. I couldn't find a breakdown of abortions by race considering only women who actually conceive, but the steadily increasing percentage of ethnic and racial minorities certainly substantiates the conclusion.
Clearly, while "minorities" abort at a higher rate, they also conceive at a much higher rate, and birth children at a higher rate than whites!
http://www.prb.org/Topics/RaceEthnicity.aspx
http://www.prb.org/Topics/RaceEthnicity.aspx
Fact: While many PP clinics are indeed located in predominately minority neighborhoods, there are several more logical explanations than a conspiracy to exterminate blacks, even though they are routinely ignored by those who attempt to advance the theories.
PP serves mostly poor people, since the more well to do generally have insurance and see private doctors. The poor, who are most likely to seek the services of PP, regardless of race, create a demand, and PP attempts to meet that demand, regardless of race.
Since property is generally less expensive in "minority" areas (which are really just poor neighborhoods), that is also a legitimate motive.
Since the location of clinics is a large part of the arguments, can you tell me what percentage of the clinics that are supposed to be in "black neighborhoods" actually provide abortions? I noticed that it is generally assumed they all do, but I haven't ever seen proof that this is so.
There are a lot of FACTS being conveniently ignored by the conspiracy theorists... Even you claim that you have seen no "proof" to substantiate my arguments that it is unreasonable to conclude an ongoing conspiracy to exterminate blacks is being carried out today, essentially challenging me to prove the negative, while you have yet to post anything more than conjecture.
I do not dispute the FACTS you feel support the theory, only the conclusions, which clearly do not follow your premise. Correlation does not imply causation, Tam, and if you examine all the facts, rather than just the ones you think support your conclusions, it becomes painfully obvious that you have to want to believe this stuff pretty badly to buy it.
I will even go so far as to speculate that, while some are clearly deluding themselves, perhaps out of zeal for the prolife cause, others likely know the conclusions are unreasonable, but simply feel the end justifies the means, and that it is OK to mislead or be dishonest for a good enough cause (such as "saving babies")!

reply from: theroo

Tam--I agree with what you said. No, we have not achieved racial equality, but as I mentioned before, racism that exists is more covert now than overt. But I believe I can find info about Sanger that was more overt than covert.
Amazing, but if you look at what CP says, it's what he DOESN'T say that's more telling. He refuses to believe that abortifacients DO leave the uterus much more inhospitable, resulting in many more "chemical' abortions. I do not want him to 'come around' when he meets his Maker. It'll be too late then.
Along another line, do you know 'exactly' how to copy a link to this forum? Two people have tried to explain it, but after several attempts at following their directions, I have failed to post the actual links.
What are they NOT telling me?

reply from: Tam

CP, what you are saying is, it's just a coincidence that PP is achieving a racist goal. It's not achieving it by design. The design at some point was to achieve that kind of goal, but along the way they changed into good guys trying to achieve good goals, and it's a coincidence that it's achieving this other goal, one that would have been more in line with the ideology of its founders. Right? All just a coincidence? I mean, that IS your premise, right?
You don't think killing sixteen million blacks since 1973 would have made the racists of the 50s happy? You know, the people who founded PP. I expect you can at least acknowledge that there WERE people, not Sanger but others of that time, who put things in writing that showed very clearly how racist they were--there are many things written in books and articles, things about how it is better for blacks not to be born at all into this world, things about taking extreme measures in reducing black populations, etc. You will at least admit, I hope, that there WERE racists who felt this way, right? Don't you think they would have been thrilled to think that their efforts would result in such a dramatic success at keeping black population levels down? Not through abortion alone--who knows how many blacks have not been born because of things like contraception and sterilization.
Really, it is a three-pronged attack.
1) Sterilization -- make them unable to make more black babies
2) Contraception -- make the ones who ARE able to conceive, conceive fewer black babies
3) Abortion -- make the ones who DO conceive black babies, less likely to give birth to them
Now. Surely you are not trying to say that there is NO ONE in the history of the world who ever thought of that. Surely you are not trying to say that of all those racists who wanted to reduce the number of black babies being born, none of them thought of putting these things into practice. We already know these things were put into practice, we know it from the facts--plenty of them. You don't even contest those facts. But are you saying that those people who would, in the 20's, 30's, and 40's, been thrilled to use any or all of those methods to reduce the number of new black people being born in this country, would not also have been thrilled to know the black population is so much smaller today because of those three things, than it would have been?
Good grief, imagine it! Imagine if all the black babies that would have been born if not for the forced sterilizations, PLUS all the black babies who would have been born if not for contraception, PLUS all the sixteen million who have been aborted--yes, it's not purely additive, but I'm just giving you a sense of the magnitude, here. We are talking millions upon millions of black people. Who do not exist in the world today. And you have to admit there are people who were involved with the eugenics movement in America who would be having a total PARTY in celebration of that, if they could have seen into the future and known it.
So those people, racists who were not above killing blacks (it was happening, you know that, right?), and wanted the black people in America to stop breeding (preferably altogether, in some cases, but at least to a great degree), just HAPPEN to be all kinds of connected to the Planned Parenthood founders. And PP just HAPPENS to help exterminate more black people than any other organization in the history of the world. Just a big coincidence? That's what you're saying? I mean, to me, that isn't even an argument, it's just baiting others into time wasting exchanges that don't ever get to anything substantive.
If there is any substance to your view, anything other than "PP doesn't force people to have abortions!" or "it's all a big coinkydink!" then stop beating around the bush and bring it ON.

reply from: Tam

Just type in a link and it automatically links to it. Try it.
http://www.youtube.com/
">http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.google.com/
">http://www.google.com/
http://www.yahoo.com/
">http://www.yahoo.com/
see?

reply from: Tam

Have you heard of "racism without racists"? Do people understand that it is not necessary to have RACISTS in order to have RACISM? Racism is so entrenched in our institutions and our society that even if every person in America wakes up tomorrow totally free of racist thoughts and sentiments, that would not suddenly make our world a world of racial equality in the same instant. It is a process--one hindered by racists, but hindered much more by racism, and the two are not one and the same. I don't think anyone is suggesting that there are racists today trying to use abortion to kill black babies. The "arguments" or lack thereof, against the movie seem to me to be trying to attack that strawman. Just because an institution is not made up of racists, does not mean the institution is free of racism.
Really, I say the question is, how much of its racism has PP managed to transcend? It seems to me that some are trying to suggest that it is 100 percent, which is ludicrous. No one is trying to suggest that it is 0 percent, and that seems to be another strawman to attack. No one is saying that PP employees are sitting around cackling with glee at the prospect of killing 36 percent of black Americans, so it is pointless to view the situation as though that is what is being said.
Racism without racists. Maybe that's what some of you think is a conspiracy? Or a misrepresentation? Outright dishonest? How dare anyone suggest such a thing, hm?

reply from: Tam

CP says
It makes no sense to me that you really believe that everyone who sees these connections and does NOT feel they can be dismissed as ancient history, is either stupid or dishonest. And perhaps the opposing viewpoint is that anyone who claims these connections are meaningless is either stupid or dishonest. Now, you don't dispute the facts, you just think the connections are... meaningless? Or do they mean something? A little bit?
OH yes, you can't understand the concept of degree. It has to be either 100 percent true or 0 percent true, that PP is an organization founded on racism and still enacting the eugenicists' vision today.
It is either sunny today, or cloudy. There is no in between! Oh, wait, yes, not everything is completely black and white. You want the eugenics/PP connection to mean NOTHING, and you pretend that those who don't agree with you, want it to mean EVERYTHING. When really all anyone is saying is that it means SOMETHING. Get it? How can you think it means nothing? It just makes no sense to me, I do not believe you are even presenting your actual views at this point, because I fail to see how you could actually hold such ridiculous views.

reply from: theroo

http://www.youtube.com/

reply from: theroo

Tam--I'm absolutely shocked! It worked! Now why didn't those two people that told me how to post links say that???
I have to agree with EVERYTHING you said. It seems to coincide so easily with what In said about "covert' racism rather than "overt" racism.
And I especially liked your statement: "Do people understand that it is not necessary to have RACISTS in order to have RACISM? Racism is so entrenched in our institutions and our society that even if every person in America wakes up tomorrow totally free of racist thoughts and sentiments, that would not suddenly make our world a world of racial equality in the same instant."
Of course, your statement says it all: "You want the eugenics/PP connection to mean NOTHING, and you pretend that those who don't agree with you, want it to mean EVERYTHING. When really all anyone is saying is that it means SOMETHING."
Some links people should read are:
Planned Parenthood Targets Minorities Like Tobacco Companies ...
"Maafa 21" Exposes Black Genocide
Abortion - Pro Life - African American Outreach Resources
Black Pro-Life Organizations ¬ę Dr. Alveda King's Blog Articles on ...
Sandra Bullock Adoption Story Highlights How Abortion Targets ...
Abortion - Pro Life - African American Outreach Resources
Pastors Accuse Planned Parenthood for 'Genocide' on Blacks ...
There are so many more, they're all hard to list. Will people even look at all the links?

reply from: CP

Tam, you're trying way too hard to "prove" an absurdity.
Racists are probably very happy about every black death, but that doesn't make them culpable. Is it the fault of racists that young black men are most likely to be killed by other young black men? Racists have tried to pit blacks against each other in the past, and they are no doubt very happy when they kill each other today, so by your skewed logic, it must be part of a conspiracy!
Talk about a straw man! Are you really operating on the assumption that such a goal exists to start with? You certainly have not shown this to be the case! Such a "goal" must exist before you can claim it is not a coincidence that it is being achieved, Tam.
And furthermore, is this alleged "goal" actually "being achieved?" Did you even bother to read my post? I clearly pointed out the fact that, if the "goal" of PP is to exterminate the black race, then they are clearly inept, since the black population is steadily growing...
Well, DUH, Tam! The overwhelming majority of people in Sanger's day were racist, and in favor of eugenics as a means of improving the world! Nutjobs speak of "evil intentions" and such, but that is not intellectually honest. Most people, I believe Sanger included, had the best of intentions, which is why eugenics lost popularity once the Nazis showed them the full implications.
Sanger was not unique in her views by any means, despite the portrayals of prolife nutters who also speak of her as if they do not fully comprehend the fact that she is dead...
And you assert that it is blacks, specifically, that are being "targeted" by these means? REALLY, TAM?
Are you still ignoring the FACT that the services PP provides are taken full advantage of by women of all races, at their sole discretion? Are you still ignoring the fact that more white women abort than other races? Are you ignoring the fact that the black population is projected to soon make whites the minority in the U.S. if current trends continue?
Taking these FACTS into consideration, I honestly fail to see how any reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that PP is attempting to exterminate the black race!
Who are you REALLY trying to convince? It likely no coincidence that the same folks who support anti-abortion violence are pushing this black genocide conspiracy theory... Why? I can only speculate, but let's reason together. Many people feel that literally ANY means is acceptable to "save babies." Many even advocate and/or condone killing abortionists and related terrorist activities.
They seem to have a problem getting people to step up to the plate and act on these beliefs though, don't they? Now, remember the civil rights movement? Wow, I bet if we convinced the black people that PP is trying to kill them all off, we could get the black people to do the "dirty work" that will allow us to terrorize abortionists out of practicing and force PP to close its doors!
How's that for a conspiracy theory? I realize I've failed to account for the lizard people, but I think it makes a lot of sense. Why else would otherwise reasonable, intelligent prolifers be so fixated on this utter hogwash? They believe the end justifies the means, and that lying is perfectly acceptable for the purpose of "saving babies!"
The problem with this is that the only people who are going to buy such a ridiculous conspiracy theory are the ones who really, really want to believe it...The prolife movement just loses credibility with everyone else by using such ploys. In the long run, this can only help keep abortion legal for longer.
Of course, that's not a problem for people who actually make a good living as prolife activists. An end to legal abortion would be the death of the golden goose for many...
But, feel free to drink the kool-aid if you want. Go ahead and believe whatever you're told to believe, just like good little prolife sheeple. If you say the emperor has no clothes, you may not be accepted by the other sheeple.

reply from: CP

Uhhh, so you think PP might be just a little bit trying to kill off all the black people?
I really don't see how there can be any gray area here, Tam. Either PP is actively and intentionally carrying out an attempt to wipe out the black race, or they're not. Which really seems more reasonable, given ALL the facts (not just the ones that are included in the ACME conspiracy kit)?
Seriously, is it possible that there is something I'm missing here? I just don't see how these genocide theories are reasonable, and not one person has given me a single truly compelling argument to show otherwise, OR satisfactorily addressed my counter arguments. It's all the same circular BS as far as I can see. I respond well to logical arguments. When will I hear one?

reply from: Tam

Not sure what you mean. You may think you have a grasp of what I am saying or feeling or thinking or doing, but whether you believe it or not, and whether you accept it or not!, it is not my job to "prove" anything to you. As for your use of the word "absurdity," I think it's pretty obvious that your own posts on this topic would merit that characterization, although you apparently don't notice this yourself.
Are you saying that NO racists are culpable for ANY black deaths? I would hope not, and I assume that your "coincidence" theory doesn't go that far. You know that SOME black deaths have indeed been caused directly by racists. I hope you realize that MANY black deaths have been caused by entrenched racism. Are you really trying to absolve racists from all blame for black deaths? For pity's sake, I think that we are ALL to some extent responsible for the situation and for perpetuating the problems rather than fixing them. We ALL share the responsibility, even those of us who are not racists--but, frankly, ESPECIALLY the racists. The ones who lynched blacks, and the ones who did other things intended to "reduce their population" in any way. Anyone specifically trying to reduce the numbers of a group of people based on the color of their skin is in effect a racist murderer. IN EFFECT if not in direct action.
It's only called a "conspiracy" because of people like you. Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK?
Talk about a straw man! Are you really operating on the assumption that such a goal exists to start with? You certainly have not shown this to be the case! Such a "goal" must exist before you can claim it is not a coincidence that it is being achieved, Tam.
You are seriously questioning whether or not there were people with the goal of reducing the black population? There is not ample evidence for this to suit you? You want us to run around and get some and post it in this thread? You are claiming that NOBODY EVER wanted to reduce the black population? That nobody EVER had a racist goal?
This is what I mean when I say you are just wasting everybody's time. Now you won't admit that racist goals even EXIST? Or ever did? Is that what you are trying to say? No, even you can't be that nonsensical. Is it perhaps that you are denying the connections between people who held racist goals and the people who founded PP? Is that what you're getting at? I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
This is what makes me so disappointed in you, astonishingly even more than I already was. You really think this is the whole truth? You won't even acknowledge the huge reduction in the black population that is achieved by abortion? No acknowledgement at all of this? 36 percent, isn't it? "...they are clearly inept"??? No, "inept" is the word for your attempt to call abortion ineffective at exterminating black people. That IS what you're trying to say...right?
Well, DUH, Tam! The overwhelming majority of people in Sanger's day were racist, and in favor of eugenics as a means of improving the world! Nutjobs speak of "evil intentions" and such, but that is not intellectually honest. Most people, I believe Sanger included, had the best of intentions, which is why eugenics lost popularity once the Nazis showed them the full implications.
Thank goodness there is finally a "DUH" moment about the patently obvious things I keep trying to get across to you. Now you are saying that the eugenicists, including Sanger, had "THE BEST OF INTENTIONS"?
Ok, let me just pause to LMFAO for a moment.
Now, is THAT your argument? That's what this is about? You think those guys were GOOD GUYS and everyone is just being mean-spirited to accuse them of racism? Oh, my.
Wow, I have yet to encounter that. Who thinks Sanger is a zombie? That sounds very scary! And with Halloween just around the corner.
And you assert that it is blacks, specifically, that are being "targeted" by these means? REALLY, TAM?
Among others. Racists usually aren't just racist about one minority. Funny thing is, they tried to make it seem as though it were about financial status rather than skin color. The statistics don't back that up, though, in terms of where abortion clinics were placed (not in poor white neighborhoods).
Ignoring? So far, yes, in terms of you making a coherent logical argument. Throwing a bunch of facts around is not the same thing as making a logical point. You need to add facts together to reach conclusions. Feel free to start anytime; it would be a welcome relief for us all.
See, right there you lose before you even begin, because you're saying people have arrived "at the conclusion that PP is attempting to exterminate the black race." That is not the conclusion people have reached, and it is perhaps this very basic misunderstanding that has you so upset about all this.
No one is saying PP is TRYING to exterminate the black race. What is being said is that the people who FOUNDED PP were trying to reduce the black population AND that PP is very effective at reducing the black population. No one is saying that PP is exterminating the entire black population of the country. No one is saying that the people who work at PP are doing so because they hold a racist goal and agenda. These are the things that you perhaps are upset by, and yet they are not even being said. All that is being said is easily summed up in two statements.
1) The founders of PP were themselves and/or were closely linked to prominent eugenicists with express, blatant goals of reducing the black population.
2) PP is reducing the black population by a significant percent.
No one is saying it's 100 percent, just that it's significant. Not to you, though, right? You don't find these two facts to be significant, or related in ANY way, shape, or form? Just a coincidence? Those eugenicists had "THE BEST OF INTENTIONS" eh?
You think the eugenicists had "THE BEST OF INTENTIONS" and you think everyone ELSE is drinking the kool-aid? Mmmkay.

reply from: Tam

Uhhh, so you think PP might be just a little bit trying to kill off all the black people?
I really don't see how there can be any gray area here, Tam. Either PP is actively and intentionally carrying out an attempt to wipe out the black race, or they're not. Which really seems more reasonable, given ALL the facts (not just the ones that are included in the ACME conspiracy kit)?
Seriously, is it possible that there is something I'm missing here? I just don't see how these genocide theories are reasonable, and not one person has given me a single truly compelling argument to show otherwise, OR satisfactorily addressed my counter arguments. It's all the same circular BS as far as I can see. I respond well to logical arguments. When will I hear one?
YES! There is something you are missing here! What you are missing is that "PP is actively and intentionally carrying out an attempt to wipe out the black race" is NOT a position that (as far as I can tell) is held by anyone! Definitely not the position held by me, nor the position promoted in Maafa21. I explained this in the above post and so will not elaborate all over again.

reply from: Tam

So you at least will admit that SOME people did NOT have the best of intentions? SOME people wanted to eliminate "inferior" races for motives that were less than pure? Can you at least admit THAT?
I mean, take HITLER for an example. Do you think he had "the best of intentions" or was he in the "evil" category? Surely you won't call anyone a "nutjob" for saying that Hitler had "evil intentions" -- or will you?
How about Madison Grant? Do you think he had "the best of intentions" and anyone who calls his intentions "evil" is a "nutjob" in your opinion? Do tell!
Where do you draw the line between "the best of intentions" and "evil intentions"? Is there ANY GRAY AREA whatsoever in your mind, or does a person have either "the best of intentions" OR "evil intentions" and never anything in between?
P.S. For those who don't know who Madison Grant was, here is an excerpt from Wikepedia about Grant (emphasis mine):

reply from: Tam

P.S. I find it very interesting to learn about the relationship between Margaret Sanger and Madison Grant, the way she felt about him. Sanger and Hitler were two of Grant's biggest fans. Research it yourself if you want.

reply from: CP

Now we might be getting somewhere. I'm just going to ignore all the BS you spouted implying that I'm some naive rube who doesn't believe there are racists with evil intentions, that racists have directly and indirectly caused the deaths of members of other races (racists can be, ARE, and have been BLACK, FYI...), since it should be patently obvious to any reasonable person that I am actually not that naive, and have actually stated numerous times that I do not contest the facts, only the conclusions.
I know you are intelligent, so I will assume you simply have an agenda (like the others who are either pretending this is something it obviously is not, or have been deluded) and are being deliberately obtuse.
You said:
This is where I really felt like pulling my hair out, Tam! Clearly, this is EXACTLY what is being implied by some, and even argued outright by others!
If no one thinks this, what is the freaking point, Tam? This IS what this whole thing is about, and I certainly DO understand that! If you truly don't see that, please explain the point behind the campaign to paint PP as a racist organization with racist agendas!!! I would really like to hear some more creative BS. Tell me what it's really about, Tam, PLEASE!
Note that I will likely not be a regular participant here, so it may be a while before I respond to you if I ever do so again. I'm just so "disappointed" in you, Tam. I know where your true allegiance lies now, and it is not necessarily with truth....I'm sorry, but mine is, and if that disappoints you, so be it.

reply from: CP

Who, exactly, is carrying out this "black genocide?" It is at the very least clearly implied that PP is, is it not?
Really, Tam? REALLY?????

reply from: Tam

This is where I really felt like pulling my hair out, Tam! Clearly, this is EXACTLY what is being implied by some, and even argued outright by others!
Not that I have noticed. It's not the position that I hold, so why jump down MY throat about it? If THAT is the position you are arguing AGAINST, you might try actually arguing with someone who claims to hold that position. Instead you are picking a fight with me, but unable to back it up with any actual argument. Maybe your argument with me is only in your imagination.
I've been trying to get the answer to that through your head for weeks here. Why don't you re-read some of my posts and see the points I have made, now that I've (we hope) cleared up your confusion about what point I am not making. So you can stop arguing with me about points I'm not even making. The two things I listed above, that is the point as far as I can tell.
I'll list them again here, to avoid any "confusion" on your part:
1) The founders of PP were themselves and/or were closely linked to prominent eugenicists with express, blatant goals of reducing the black population.
2) PP is reducing the black population by a significant percent.
And your position on this is, I believe, that it's a whopping coincidence, that one thing has NOTHING to do with the other. Right?
If you do not have an argument with the points *I* made, then either you're arguing with the wrong person, or you've got some twisted agenda I probably don't even want to know about.
Argh! Got my hopes up for a minute, there. Upon further reflection, I translate this little gem as "I will be posting here and annoying the living daylights out of everyone, but not as CP, because I've worn out my welcome and I know it, so the only way I can hope to have any respect on this forum is by switching usernames."
You were saying?
LOL You know where my "true allegiance lies" and presumably you are trying to say that it's with those lying liars who exposed the racist origins of PP, right? And that to oppose that is to "ally with truth" as you fancy yourself having done.
Do you really think nobody is seeing through this? I wonder what your idea of "truth" is, if you are willing to say the things you have said about PP and Margaret Sanger. You act like a groupie who can't admit that the lead singer of his favorite group actually was caught with an underage prostitute.

reply from: Tam

Who, exactly, is carrying out this "black genocide?" It is at the very least clearly implied that PP is, is it not?
Really, Tam? REALLY?????
LOL Are you really seeing claims that PP is staffed and operated entirely by hardcore racists who are relishing these abortions with eugenics-inspired glee? That's what you are arguing against, and I repeat that this is not a position that I have seen anyone promoting. Feel free to prove me wrong. But it's a double-edged sword.
1) If there really ARE people saying this, you should be arguing with THEM, not me, because I am not saying this.
but
2) If there are NOT people saying this, then you are just trolling for a fight, and unable to prove that there ARE, you will probably try to change the subject, or just run and hide.

reply from: Tam

What up, CP? No answer to this one? Yeah, I thought not. You can see where I'm going with this, and you know it's a place you can't handle.
So you at least will admit that SOME people did NOT have the best of intentions? SOME people wanted to eliminate "inferior" races for motives that were less than pure? Can you at least admit THAT?
I mean, take HITLER for an example. Do you think he had "the best of intentions" or was he in the "evil" category? Surely you won't call anyone a "nutjob" for saying that Hitler had "evil intentions" -- or will you?
How about Madison Grant? Do you think he had "the best of intentions" and anyone who calls his intentions "evil" is a "nutjob" in your opinion? Do tell!
Where do you draw the line between "the best of intentions" and "evil intentions"? Is there ANY GRAY AREA whatsoever in your mind, or does a person have either "the best of intentions" OR "evil intentions" and never anything in between?
P.S. For those who don't know who Madison Grant was, here is an excerpt from Wikepedia about Grant (emphasis mine):

reply from: Tam

It is indeed patently obvious that you are not actually naive enough to believe what you seem to believe (that it's all a big coinkydink). Here's the hilarious part--you on the one hand want to basically say "of course I know there are racists with evil intentions" and yet on the other hand you won't actually admit that anyone specific was a racist with evil intentions.
Ok, CP, you are aware that there are racists with evil intentions: NAME ONE. Name ONE American racist you would admit had evil intentions. GOOD LUCK NAMING ONE WHO IS NOT IN SOME WAY LINKED TO YOUR IDOL MARGARET SANGER, whom you say had "the best of intentions." She was linked to just about every raging racist lunatic of her day. Go ahead, name one.

reply from: CP

So you at least will admit that SOME people did NOT have the best of intentions? SOME people wanted to eliminate "inferior" races for motives that were less than pure? Can you at least admit THAT?
I mean, take HITLER for an example. Do you think he had "the best of intentions" or was he in the "evil" category? Surely you won't call anyone a "nutjob" for saying that Hitler had "evil intentions" -- or will you?
How about Madison Grant? Do you think he had "the best of intentions" and anyone who calls his intentions "evil" is a "nutjob" in your opinion? Do tell!
Where do you draw the line between "the best of intentions" and "evil intentions"? Is there ANY GRAY AREA whatsoever in your mind, or does a person have either "the best of intentions" OR "evil intentions" and never anything in between?
P.S. For those who don't know who Madison Grant was, here is an excerpt from Wikepedia about Grant (emphasis mine):
I'm sorry, was there a point hidden here somewhere? Please do elaborate, because I'm not seeing it. It looks like just more diversion to me....

reply from: Tam

Just stopping by to say that I just learned that this is not just a moral issue. Genocide is illegal in the U.S. -- very illegal, with very harsh penalties. So if PP could be shown to be participating at ALL knowingly in the genocidal goals of its founders, there could be millions and millions of dollars in fines, prison time, even capital punishment, depending on the situation.
Maybe there will be trials such as those that took place after other genocides, and maybe some people will be made to answer for the crimes that have been committed here.

reply from: Tam

So you at least will admit that SOME people did NOT have the best of intentions? SOME people wanted to eliminate "inferior" races for motives that were less than pure? Can you at least admit THAT?
I mean, take HITLER for an example. Do you think he had "the best of intentions" or was he in the "evil" category? Surely you won't call anyone a "nutjob" for saying that Hitler had "evil intentions" -- or will you?
How about Madison Grant? Do you think he had "the best of intentions" and anyone who calls his intentions "evil" is a "nutjob" in your opinion? Do tell!
Where do you draw the line between "the best of intentions" and "evil intentions"? Is there ANY GRAY AREA whatsoever in your mind, or does a person have either "the best of intentions" OR "evil intentions" and never anything in between?
P.S. For those who don't know who Madison Grant was, here is an excerpt from Wikepedia about Grant (emphasis mine):
I'm sorry, was there a point hidden here somewhere? Please do elaborate, because I'm not seeing it. It looks like just more diversion to me....
Yes, and the point is probably as obvious to you as your efforts to avoid addressing it are to me.
The point is that you have claimed that Margaret Sanger had "the best of intentions" in founding PP, and you have accused someone (probably me) of ascribing "evil intentions" to her and her cronies. You have then admitted (finally, when forced to admit it, and then acting all "well DUH" about it when you finally admitted it) that you do know that there really were racists who really did have evil intentions--and I have challenged you to name ONE American racist of that time period whom you would admit had "evil intentions" rather than "the best of intentions."
Obviously, where I'm going with this is that I don't think you can admit that there were genocidal racists in America without admitting that Margaret Sanger was (at worst) one of them or (at best) an admirer of theirs. And that is why you can't answer the question. I mean, there probably WAS one who didn't have blatant ties to Sanger, but it would surely take some research to find out which one, and I am sure that research would reveal the uncomfortable (for those who admire Sanger) history of Sanger's many links to the most frothing-at-the-mouth genocidal jerks of that time. I don't mean your average person, who living in a racist world was unavoidably to some degree racist--I mean genocidal people who actively want to reduce the population of people with dark skin.

reply from: CP

But nobody is saying PP is involved in such a conspiracy, right Tam?
Do try to get your story straight, dear....
I don't get it. I asked you what was the point, in other words, what do you think the existence of racists with bad intentions, past or present, proves... You respond that the point is that I "claimed" Sanger had "the best of intentions" and accused someone of claiming the opposite? That doesn't make ANY sense, Tam...
And you "forced" me to admit the obvious?
I conceded that there were no doubt racists with bad intentions (both black and white), but based on everything I know about Sanger, I honestly do not believe she was one of them. It has been suggested that she tricked all the poor dumb blacks into supporting her agendas (more than a little insulting, in my view) to explain why black leaders were behind her, but I believe they simply saw what Sanger saw, that indiscriminate and uncontrolled breeding by the poor greatly contributed to the vicious cycle of poverty.
Sanger actually did not specifically "target" people based on race, but based on her idea of potential to contribute to society rather than being a "burden." Of course, she viewed blacks as inferior and generally lacking in this potential, but as I have pointed out numerous times, the overwhelming majority of white people in her day viewed blacks in this way whether they held any animosity for them or not...
Of course, none of this really has anything to do with what is going on TODAY, but I think you know that. It's all just part of the "smoke and mirrors." It doesn't matter if it is reasonable to conclude that PP is trying to kill off the blacks, only whether planting the little seeds of conspiracy theory might serve your agendas, amirite?
WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK THE EXISTENCE OF RACISTS WITH BAD INTENTIONS, PAST OR PRESENT, ACTUALLY PROVES? AND WHY WOULD IT MATTER IF I TRIED TO NAME ONE? I HAVE CLEARLY CONCEDED THAT THEY EXIST, EXISTED IN SANGER'S DAY, AND WILL PROBABLY ALWAYS EXIST, BUT FOR SOME REASON, YOU SEEM RELUCTANT TO SAY WHAT YOU THINK THIS MEANS! YOU HAVE STATED THAT YOU ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT PP IS INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A "BLACK GENOCIDE," AND THAT YOU DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE WHO IS, BUT YOU SEEM TO BE ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE JUST THAT, TAM, AND CLEARLY THAT IS THE POINT BEHIND THE WHOLE "BLACK GENOCIDE" AND PP DISCUSSION!
ONCE MORE, WHAT IS THE POINT, TAM? ARE YOU, OR ARE YOU NOT, SUGGESTING THAT PP IS (OR MAY BE) INVOLVED IN SUCH A CONSPIRACY TODAY? IF YOU ARE, WHICH YOU CERTAINLY SEEM TO BE, WHY DID YOU DENY THAT?

reply from: CP

First of all, Sanger did not advocate abortion, or any killing for that matter. She advocated eugenics for the good of society. She wished to control the rampant breeding of "the unfit." That was her criterion, not race. Of course, like most people in her day, she was operating under the misguided notion that character traits were hereditary, that lazy people had lazy kids, thieves had dishonest kids, those more prone to violence had violent kids, etc... And, of course, like most people in her day, she considered blacks to be generally inferior, and therefore generally "unfit."
For the sake of argument, let us assume Sanger was a "genocidal racist" or that she "admired" such people. Does that change the fact that she opposed abortion? Does it support the implications that PP is currently carrying out the goal of killing off the blacks by abortion? HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE FACT THAT EVERY SINGLE WOMAN WHO ABORTS, REGARDLESS OF RACE, DOES SO BY HER CHOICE, AT HER SOLE DISCRETION?
So, if the black race is being exterminated, WHO is responsible? You talk about "dodging questions" and "forcing admissions," but you have yet to address a single point I've raised, as far as I can see!
You even denied that this is about claims and/or implications that PP is currently attempting to commit a "black genocide," even while clearly arguing that they are, probably are, might be, or whatever semantic acrobatics you are currently employing! How about a little intellectual honesty, Tam? Don't give me any more ridiculous arguments like your "what if there is some troof to it, oh noes!" It is obviously either true or not true that PP is carrying out a "black genocide," and you haven't shown any proof that they are (but did deny that you are arguing that they are).

reply from: Tam

But nobody is saying PP is involved in such a conspiracy, right Tam?
Do try to get your story straight, dear....
Is this a new tactic to make me vomit on my computer and therefore unable to respond to your nonsense? It almost worked, too--I think when you called me "dear," I threw up in my mouth a little.
I thought it was obvious that the intentions of the founders were genocidal. You seem to disagree, so that is what I was trying to address. As far as I'm concerned, the outstanding question is whether or not PP is knowingly committing genocide. You see, from what I understand, it is only genocide if you are doing it on purpose.
Let's use an analogy. Let's say that you eat at a restaurant and die from poison in your food. Your waiter, who handed you the poisoned food, is charged with murder. In the end, the cops find out that the food was poisoned by the chef, who knew that you were the one who would be eating it and poisoned it deliberately to kill you.
The DA would charge the chef with first degree murder, but the chef dies before the case even goes to trial. The homicide detectives need to learn one crucial piece of information in determining how to treat the waiter. Did the waiter know the food was poisoned? If so, then the waiter was an accomplice at best, and probably would be charged with first degree murder as well. If the waiter was really just an innocent person being used by the evil chef, then the DA will not have any legitimate case against the waiter.
Now, as far as I can tell, your position vs. my position is analogous to:
I think the cops should fully investigate the waiter.
You think the chef didn't even poison the guy, that it was all an accident, that the chef intended to give the guy wholesome food, but through some coincidence, the guy got food poisoning and died. In your view, the waiter and the chef are both innocent and the justice system is unfairly trying to prosecute them for a situation in which no crime was actually committed.
That is certainly the impression you've given with your "Margaret Sanger had the best of intentions" line. You think she was some well-intentioned person just trying to do something good for people, whereas I smell a rat.

reply from: Tam

Wow, quite the little temper tantrum. Do you think you make more sense in capitals and boldface than you did before?
Put very simply: this is not a case of individuals, like the waiter/chef/diner analogy above. Sanger and a group of others started PP. Today, I shudder to think how many individuals work for and otherwise support PP. Let's assume it's millions of people, disheartening as that is (to me, perhaps not to you). Do I think the PP founders were genocidal? Heck yes. Do I think they founded PP in order to commit genocide? Yes. And if any one individual person supports PP knowing this, then that person is also committing genocide. However, I would be surprised if anyone actually does.
I think there is evidence that PP would welcome support from anyone, genocidal racist or not, but I don't think there is evidence that anyone working for PP at this time is actively participating in a genocidal plot. And I really don't think anyone has suggested as much. If someone has, please just quote it and save us all some time, because you certainly seem to be implying it, and I don't believe you.
What HAS been suggested is that the original, founding goal of PP was black genocide, and that this whole messy issue needs to be investigated further to determine the trail of accountability. Perhaps there ARE people working for PP today who are actively genocidal. I think that's highly unlikely, but if it were proven, that would be a fantastic opportunity to hold someone accountable for these crimes. Highly unlikely, though, that anyone could be proven to be genocidal in the present day in the US.
To answer your little tantrum, I was basically hoping to reconstruct for you the logical steps that lead people to the conclusion that the founding goal of PP was black genocide. I'm pretty sure you know this, and that you don't want those logical steps reconstructed, and will balk at every single step, getting off on so many tangents hoping to obfuscate the trail of clues that lead to that conclusion.
You DO deny the conclusion, right? You DO think it's NOT the case that PP was founded in order to kill blacks before they are born? You do think it's a coincidence that PP kills so many black people, that this has nothing to do with the goals of its founders?
As for that "how do you address the FACT that women abort by choice" -- I already told you, throwing around a bunch of facts is NOT the same thing as making a logical argument. Now you are regurgitating the same non-arguments you've used multiple times before.
You did pose one important question worthy of an answer. You ask "if the black race is being exterminated, WHO is responsible?" and the answer is twofold:
1) whether the black race is being exterminated is not an "IF". it's nearly forty percent of black americans, isn't it, who are killed in the womb? that is not an IF. are you debating the abortion/race STATISTICS now? are you denying that abortion "exterminates" anyone? Where is this "IF" coming from? What are you denying here?
2) We all are responsible, for doing what we can to stop things like genocide and murder. Did you really mean, who should be charged with crimes? If people like you would stand up and take a little more responsiblity for things like this, instead of doing every single thing you can to dodge any responsibility and to insulate your dear Margaret Sanger from any as well, perhaps there wouldn't be so much injustice in the world.

reply from: CP

I don't suppose it would serve any purpose to point out the fact that the black population is actually increasing, would it? And that the deaths by abortion are the direct result of the personal choices of blacks themselves? You seem unwilling to acknowledge the significance of these facts, so I will not continue to press the matter...
Ah, well I suppose that clears everything up. We are ALL guilty of genocide against blacks, including blacks, right? But you said nobody was saying there was an ongoing plot to exterminate blacks... It all makes sense to me now!
I give up. There is obviously no point in any further discussion with you, since you are obviously either dishonest or deluded, perhaps both, and the site is dead anyway. RIP
I will continue to concentrate my efforts in other arenas, and you may say and do whatever serves your own agendas, whatever they might be, in this one. Enjoy...

reply from: Tam

I don't suppose it would serve any purpose to point out the fact that the black population is actually increasing, would it? And that the deaths by abortion are the direct result of the personal choices of blacks themselves? You seem unwilling to acknowledge the significance of these facts, so I will not continue to press the matter...
You're just pretending to be this dense. If you have a rodent infestation in your house, and the exterminators have been failing to get rid of the rodents for awhile, it obviously could be the case that the rodents were being exterminated in part while still multiplying depite the extermination attempts. Distasteful example? EXACTLY. The type of genocidal racists who created PP did indeed view the black race in much that way.
Blacks are being exterminated ONE AT A TIME, which is a slow method, less effective than, say, a nuclear bomb. But the effect of abortion on the black community is very similar to the effect of a nuclear bomb.
If you had six children, and your psycho neighbor was shooting at them sniper-style from his attic window, then after a couple kids were killed, would you still say "my children aren't being exterminated, because that same day, my wife gave birth to triplets, and only two of my kids have been shot! I'm ahead of the game! How can you say the sniper is trying to exterminate my children, when the number of born children in my family is INCREASING? You are ignoring the facts!!!"
Oh, wait, in order to make the analogy really sing, I should have had YOU be the one shooting your own children. Then you could screech, "It's voluntary! It's voluntary! These deaths are the result of my personal choice!" as though that makes any difference at all in whether they are being killed.
So...you are completely incapable of making any sort of argument in this case, and your evasion tactics have not worked, therefore you are throwing in the towel in utter failure. You have not even tried to address most of my points, you have tried to avoid them or twist them. In a straightforward debate on this issue, you would lose hands-down, and that is why you are running scared.
I challenge you to a real debate on this subject, according to some rules that require you to make valid arguments (logically valid, that is--we already know your arguments are without merit, but at least if they were logical, they could be debated) and to respond to the actual arguments made by your opponent.
Debate question: Is Planned Parenthood, whether deliberately or unknowingly, carrying out a genocidal plot against blacks?
Step up, big talker. I will kick your sorry tush in any real debate where you can't just weasel around the points.

reply from: Tam

No response to this, eh?
Yup, that's what I thought.
ANYONE want to debate this more formally? If not CP, maybe someone else is interested? Perhaps one of the others who has so ardently defended PP against these accusations? Or perhaps even just a troll? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

reply from: Tam

Anyone have the courage to pick up this discussion where CP bailed out?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics