Alveda King inspires audience at pregnancy center event

Dr. Alveda King signs “We Who Are In Jesus Christ” for Fayette County resident Linda Sandwich at the conclusion of the Fayette Pregnancy Resource Center banquet and fund-raiser. King was the featured speaker Jan. 25 at the Wyndham Peachtree Conference Center event. Photo/Ben Nelms.

The Fayette Pregnancy Resource Center is an organization that is unashamedly pro-life and pro-Christian. The center’s annual banquet and fundraiser at the Wyndham Peachtree Conference Center Jan. 25 featured Dr. Alveda King and was attended by several hundred residents from Fayette and Coweta counties and around southwest metro Atlanta.

Dr. King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., was the featured speaker at the event. Woven throughout the fabric of her remarks was the question, “How can the dream survive if we murder the children?”

More a testimony than anything else, King spoke about the occurrences in her own life that dealt with life and death, birth and abortion.

“Being pro-life is not a political position,” King said. “God is not Democrat or Republican. Life is for everybody. Life is from conception until natural death.”

King noted what she had observed with the prevalence of abortion clinics across the nation, adding that many are located near college campuses.

“Our young people are under siege, under attack. And we have to help them,” King explained. “Centers like the Fayette Pregnancy Resource Center saves the lives of babies.”

And as much as anything, King reiterated the need for continued contributions to further the cause and the mission of the Fayette Pregnancy Resource Center.

“Can I do it all? No. Can I do more. Yes,” King noted. “What can I do? Pray and give money.”

Georgia Lt. Governor Casey Cagle served as emcee at the banquet.

Fayette Pregnancy Resource Center Executive Director Luci Hough during the dinner said the pro-life, pro-Christian center in 2010 served 329 clients from around southwest metro Atlanta, including 223 first-time clients, and conducted 1,612 client visits at the facility. Hough said there were 77 positive pregnancy tests. Fourteen of the center’s clients were abortion-minded or vulnerable, Hough said.

And in terms of number for which statistics have a diminished bearing, there were five babies saved through counseling in 2010, two minds changed from abortion to undecided, 243 Gospel presentations and 32 clients who received Christ, Hough said.

Speaking in broader terms, Hough said one in 10 girls between ages 15-19 become pregnant each year to a father that is at least four years older. Many of those girls become pregnant again within a year. Hough said 78 percent of births to teen mothers occur outside of marriage.

The center provides pregnancy testing, counseling, education on pregnancy, abortion alternatives, referrals for medical, housing, adoption and other services and operates a large clothes closet that dispensed more than 37,000 diapers last year. All services are free and confidential.

The Fayette Pregnancy Resource Center is located in Fayetteville at 116 Bethea Road, Suite 208. The new center on Ga. Highway 54 near downtown Fayetteville is under construction and is still in need of additional funds to complete the project.

For more information call 770-719-2288 or visit www.fayetteprc.com.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Huge victory for Christian Predator Centers!

The South Dakota legislature passed a law on Friday to revitalize scummy Christian Predator Centers. Now, in South Dakota, if a woman wishes to have an abortion by a medical doctor, she must first obtain "counseling" at a local Christian Predator Center and provide proof of this "counseling" to her doctor. LINK

The usual Citizen Glibertarians will be by shortly to inform us this really doesn't have a thing to do with interfering between a doctor/patient relationship and how a statewide "bedroom police" is actually a core tenet of "smaller government". Also, they will explain how we always have been at war with Oceania.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Christian? - the abortion issue

This issue in the hands of legislators is disingenuous. Abortion and/or choosing to carry a child full term and then give that child up is not a decision to be made by a government agency. It is a moral, medical decision to be made by a woman and her family. To carry a child in your womb for nine months knowing that you must give that child up for adoption is a horrendous situation. Knowing that you are killing a human being through abortion is a horrendous situation. Those 'Christians' who are so intent on making everyone adhere to their moral code need to counsel the members of their congregations so that young/middle age women are not faced with this decision. If you can't get the members of your churches to adhere to your standards, don't try to get 'government' to do your job! FEDERAL FUNDS CANNOT BE USED FOR THE ABORTION PROCEDURE - THAT IS THE LAW! This issue is going to lose the Republican Party (right-wing conservatives) the women/young vote. We need a two party system, but the bi-partisanship began to lose its 'reality' when the Dixiecrats joined the Republican Party. Those who are looking for issues to divide this nation are winning. Name-calling, labeling, and fear mongering are clouding the issues that need to be addressed with some semblance of common sense.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Right you are Mom. It is a very difficult situation

and having government's heavy hand in it does not make it any better. We have legal abortion and we have no federal funds being used for it. Fine. So be it. Leave it alone at the federal level and move on to something else. Keeping this alive as a campaign issue distracts from what elected officials and government are supposed to be doing.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you have this compulsion to prevent other people from having abortions, pressure them through your church or billboards or TV ads. Or if you must involve government in your power trip, do it at the state level - get enough signatures on a statewide referendum, let everyone in your state vote, then move on. I'm guessing Utah and maybe Alabama would outlaw abortion, but the other 48 are agnostic about the issue, but would do anything to reduce government influence.

And while you are at it, make the Christian Coilition register as lobbyists. Even the far left whackos could support that with their separation of church and state argument.

I agree with everything you said, Davids Mom. The haters and dividers (and control freaks) are indeed winning. Let's take the issues that they thrive upon off the table one at a time. Starting with abortion makes good sense.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Funding for PPH

I was appalled when I learned that PPH was considered the 'safe' place to get an abortion by most females of today. The newly trained staffs at PPH will be trained, as the early trained staffs were, to provide education about the reproductive process for males and females; to provide products that assist a woman in controlling her choice of when to become a mother. It is my understanding that under the Hyde Amendment? - no federal funding can be used for 'abortion'. I was also appalled to learn that some 'Christian' clinics actually encouraged the mother to have a child that she had no way of providing for - and DID NOT assist with adoption procedures. Before sex was touted as 'recreational' rather than 'creational' - young women were taken to PPH for contraceptives - to prevent an unwanted child from ever being 'planted'. As I have stated before - the churches and parents need to take responsibility and provide realistic guidance for their children within the principles of their religion and/or culture. . . .but women should have a choice about childbirth. A speaker today gave a very moving speech in Congress about the incorrect idea that having an abortion was a cavalier decision. It is a decision that the majority of women find very, very difficult to make and/or live with.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
What makes us human?

At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves children with learning disabilities, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question:

'When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does, is done with perfection.

Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do.

Where is the natural order of things in my son?'

The audience was stilled by the query.

The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay, who was mentally and physically disabled comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child.'

Then he told the following story:

Shay and I had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let me play?' I knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but as a fatherI also understood that if my son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.

I approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning.'

Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt. I watched with a small tear in my eye and warmth in my heart. The boys saw my joy at my son being accepted.

In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three.

In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as I waved to him from the stands..

In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again.

Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat.

At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game?

Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball.

However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact.

The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed.

The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay.

As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher.

The game would now be over.

The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman.

Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game.

Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's head, out of reach of all team mates.

Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to first!

Run to first!'

Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base.

He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled.

Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!'

Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base.

B y the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball . the smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team.

He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head.

Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home.

All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay'

Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run to third!

Shay, run to third!'

As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run home!'

Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team
'That day', said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world'.

Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making me so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!

What virtues did Shay teach us that day? What if he had never been born?

What makes us human?

The author is unknown, but the questions are mine. What is the true value of a human life among us?

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
Touching story, PTCobserver...

Shay was very lucky to have a father. However, Shay's dad wasn't an unwed mother, frightened and alone, facing the prospect of raising a child entirely by herself. Until you are a female, faced with an unwanted pregnancy, you cannot begin to relate to what a woman goes through.

Planned Parenthood funding is on the chopping block and those who want to help their cause, to provide legal and safe abortions to women, should think about donating to them asap.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Main Stream I will ask

I will ask you the same things I asked of Bacon, he didn't answer yet.

Do you believe that it is appropriate for PPH to get government funding?

Or do you believe that if PPH has a case for giving women a choice they should simply do this on their own with funding provided directly by people of your thinking?

If you believe that PPH should get government funding, do you also believe that organizations that support non-abortion alternatives should get government funding?

Do you think this funding should be equal?

These are simply yes or no answers.

Just wondering if your position is consistent with your philosophy of using government largess for social engineering.

And one more for you since you are a woman, apparently, what exactly makes it your business what other women go through? What gives you the right to provide anything for them with other people's money? If you support this why don't you do it yourself without my support? I am just wondering why people like you believe you have some higher moral authority over my money.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
Observor...

I understand that it is difficult for you to be empathetic to a woman's plight when encountering an unwanted pregnancy, or any other health condition that we may face. For many women, Planned Parenthood is the only way the uninsured can receive health care, birth control, yearly exams, and cancer screening. In addition, the federal funds that PP receives DO NOT go towards abortions... the funds go towards family planning, cancer screenings, etc. (I'm fairly certain that the Hyde Amendment has made sure that no federal funds that PP receives goes toward abortions).

No, I don't think that the Christian pregnancy centers should receive any federal funding at all, if that is what you are asking me. What service do they provide? Providing false information to scared, young women? i.e. abortions cause breast cancer and suicide... they're a bunch of sickos, telling this to women.

And regarding where our tax dollars go, I hate the 2 wars we are involved in right now, however, MY tax dollars are going towards fighting these insane wars and it goes against my own personal belief system, yet I still have to pay for this. That is the way it works. Get over yourself.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Anti-abortion terrorists

Roe v. Wade gave American women a choice and some control over their bodies.

What could be more American!!!

Since then American women have been terrorized by the Christian Taliban anti-abortionists who have continued to find ways to limit the legal rights of American women. Some of these Taliban anti-abortionist have even resorted to murder.

Those who use devious methods to confuse women at a very vulernable time in their lives and do not tell them that they have a legal right to an abortion are despicable.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Margaret Sanger would be proud of you all

Let's just control the inferior minorities. The weak and infirmed need not breed but if you do Planned Parenthood will be there for you.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
the "inferior minorities" quote

Hey Oofu, I have some bad news for ya, buddy.

Margaret Sanger never made the "inferior minorities" (aka "inferior races") quote you're alluding to. It appears that anti-birth control interests falsely attributed this fictional quote to her in the 1930s. Nearly 80 years on, bigots such as yourself still foist that lie upon a gullible public. Link: False statements attributed to Margaret Sanger

People here are laughing at you.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bacon there are whole thesis written about her

Her apologist sites like the one you listed are few but active. I mean of course Planned Parenthood would try to distance themselves from their founder. I mean really that's it? That's all you got? You use her own organization as your source and in your mind that settles it?

Come on Bacon using the actual organization she founded as the source of information about her to counter NEGATIVE arguments is Ludicris. Sort of like using Maddof's facebook page to counter arguments he used a ponzi scheme.

You progressives will distort anything if it supports your cause.

Face it Bacon Sanger was a Eugenics loving Racist. She founded Planned Parenthood for the sole purpose of controlling the feeble minded, and those that they deemed not worthy.

Now defend your argument, don't just disagree. Check out her "Negro Project" and "Malthusian eugenics" then get back to me.

"Malthus' disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated—or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.5"

Sanger was a Supporter and believer in this program.

btw- That was not an attributed quote there bacon again reading comprehension 101 is a remedial class given by many secondary educational campuses even the one you graduated from.

Also keep selling that self-esteem issue bacon. If it makes you feel better you can believe everyone is laughing at me. I can assure you though not many are laughing at you. They're too shocked at what you spew almost daily here.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Sanger and eugenics

Let's see here...Planned Parenthood, the organization that Margaret Sanger founded, is an "apologist site"?

People are laughing at you, bigot.

You've countered my argument with wild accusations from tin-foil hat websites?

People are laughing at you, bigot.

Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics in the 1920s. That's beyond a doubt. Nonetheless, you attempt to conflate her with the very worst elements of the eugenics movement, simply because it fits your preconceived political notions. That's akin to me damning you as a conservative because fringe conservatives like Eric Rudolph shoot abortion doctors. It's a logical fallacy (Gee, there are those words AGAIN!) called "Guilt by Association".

People are laughing at you, bigot.

You asked me to lookup the Negro Project. I did. Sanger was the primary fundraiser for the project for three years. Her stated purpose was to secure funding for low-cost birth control alternatives in Negro communities. After she left the program, her plan to have black doctors and nurses serve their communities was replaced with the same-old same-old patronizin' white doctors that black folks distrusted. You want to condemn her for trying something different? Be my guest.

People are laughing at you, bigot.

Margaret Sanger dedicated her life to providing birth control to everyone, but particularly low-income people who heretofore had little to no access to birth control. I realize that bigots like you tend to equate "low income" with "black". Margaret Sanger was not a racist. Unlike you.

People are laughing at you, bigot.

p.s. if your quote was not a quote, why did you use quotation marks? DERP!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Wow!
Quote:

Let's just control the inferior minorities

What do you suggest we do with the inferior 'majorities'? I hope you were being sarcastic.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
You're not really serious are you DM?

You don't know where Planned Parenthood comes from?
Do a little work and discover just who Margaret Sanger was.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observerofu

Another 'opinion' on Margaret Sanger's racism. You must expose yourself to other opinions - and realize that others have a different opinion than your so-called FACTS.

http://feministsforchoice.com/was-margaret-sanger-a-racist.htm

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well I don't doubt the Feminist movement was all for abortion

that like saying bulimics like food.

Come on you are really gong to use a pro-abortion, pro-women issue site to justify Sanger's belief that black people were inferior and abortion could be used to control our population.

You are black right. How low will you go for the progressive movement?
This is absolutely amazing. I guess next to will be defending Ezekiel Emanuel and his views of Eugenics.

Here DM you need a little black put back into you. Stop selling yourself.

How Planned Parenthood Duped America

http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

"At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

btw-I can understand bacon's latent racism he has shown us the inside of his closet before. But you an self proclaimed freedom fighter and righter of all wrongs to blacks are actually defending these people.

No wonder we have sold several generations of our youths in virtual slavery. You helped teach them.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
OMG Dr. Harry, you talking about us?

The good doctor said "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
Doesn't that sound like some of of the people we hear from on these blogs?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Mud

Yeah, it does mean that! Is your butt still stinging? Although "clicks" were left out.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
OOU

Your logic and presentation of 'facts' to support your beliefs is the main reason the Republicans are losing the independent and youth vote. LOL! Thanks!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Go ahead and bail DM

figured you would. Like bacon when confronted with real facts from real sources you nor bacon care to engage in the arena of ideas.

DM you are the problem with our community. You are willing to sale yourself to the highest bidder and you were bought for the price of a vote.

btw- did you notice my source was from a BLACK site DM a site about black issues. Real facts DM not "facts" fed to us to keep us docile and on the plantation.

You should really put your activism where it should be, back into the black community

btw#2- How does your logic fit into the results of Nov 2010? So who's views are winning here DM?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
OOU

http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

A Black site? - trying to encourage Blacks to vote conservative and Republican. Know your sources honey.
All polls except Rasmussen show that Obama's ratings are going up. If this Congress doesn't get something done regarding our budget - don't bet on a thing for 2012. There is a lot of work to be done and a lot of trust to be earned before the electorate makes up its mind about this Congress and this President.

There are Conservative blacks - and they are respected in OUR community. . . but the program as presented by the current leaders of the conservative thought is one of preservation of the status quo and it appears to many in OUR community that it is geared in halting progress rather than supporting progress in the minority community. Obviously that is not your opinion - but I think you will agree that the majority of OUR community would agree with me at this time.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
OK here we go again DM

Again you change the subject. Defend your argument DM. You started out defending Margaret Sanger as just another freedom loving feminist, you have yet to answer the main point of the issue I raised.

Was she a Eugenics, Racist with the views that inferior races such as you and I in her view should be controlled and not be allowed to breed uncontrolled?

That is and was the point. Now every time "honey" I pin you down you want to slide over to another subject. If you can't defend "your" statement fine you don't have to say so. I have more then proved my point and any critical thinking person will be able to see that.

I just find it the height of hypocrisy to have a self avowed activist of black civil rights support and defend those that wanted to control our population.

"“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, "

eu·gen·ics [ yoo jénniks ]
selective breeding as proposed human improvement: the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged desirable. It has been regarded with disfavor since the Nazi period.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
oou
Quote:

I have more then proved my point and any critical thinking person will be able to see that.

A thinking person will make up their own mind. Good night.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
OOU

Your references above concerning racism remind me of what we did during WW2 to the Japanese, any Japanese here.
Also, th Chinese after we brought them here to build the railroads as slave laborers, nearly.
Then came the Italians, Irish, Hungarians, etc.

Now we have all Muslims to kick around--Islamic or not.

I don't think we have any organizations here now plotting the "thinning" of the black race!

There are some "TEAS" however........

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
FAYE WATTLETON - AFRICAN AMERICAN FYI

. .AND President of Planned Parenthood.

Read for yourself. Yes I'm Black - but not blinded by right-wing so-called Christians. As I have stated before, I believe that as great as my country is - it has racist practices. But I have seen great improvement in this area. Haven’t you? You vote today because of the Feminists in our history. (If you are female.) I'm grateful that I never had to make a choice regarding abortion. I support CHOICE - not government interfering with my body by law or some religious beliefs. The church and parents should be doing a better job regarding moral education. I'm surprised at the right-wing hypocrisy regarding this issue.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/birthcontrol/p/faye_wattleton.htm

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Ok DM focus here. You started off defending Sanger

not the issue itself. Now caught out you go all womens rights issue.

That's not he point and YOU know it.

I want to hear again how you can defend The FOUNDER of Planned Parenthood's beliefs and reason why it was formed in the first place.

Her views that we are inferior races and should not be allowed to breed in quantities that would dilute the WHITE race and her solution was to create an issue, make it a "Womans Rights" issue, BUT place these clinics in BLACK neighborhoods and preach to us about it our Freedom at stake.

I want to hear you defend her views AGAIN.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
OOU
Quote:

BUT place these clinics in BLACK neighborhoods and preach to us about it our Freedom at stake.

THIS IS NOT TRUE! The clinic I attended was in a WHITE neighborhood in 1960. I won't call you a 'liar' - but grossly misinformed.

Your opinion is based on the 'facts' as have been presented to you. Others, Including Faye Wattleton have a different point of view - and 'the rights of women' over her body and her reproductive organs has always been important to Black women - from the days of slavery to the present. It is a right that we had to 'fight' for often. THAT IS THE ISSUE! I know that there are those who want to exclude these 'facts' from our history texts - but as those of the Jewish culture will not let us 'forget' the murder of Jews by Hitler - African Americans will not allow history to forget our dark days.

Let's take the time to 'edit' before we post. Some of your sentences were difficult to understand, but I get the point you're trying to make

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Dm just read the article ALL 5 pages then get back to me

if you still think that Sanger and Planned Parenthood helped the black community then I will give up, but until you do you truly don't know what you are talking about.

btw- All you have to do is read it. DM you will discover that these clinics STARTED out in minority neighborhoods. DM you are stretching credulity by continually trying to obfuscate the issue.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
OOU
Quote:

btw- All you have to do is read it. DM you will discover that these clinics STARTED out in minority neighborhoods

I will not get back to you - for you do little research beyond what you have been led to read. Planned Parenthood was the answer for many a 'black' woman back in the day - when the 'botched' abortions were prevalent because of back alley abortionists, etc. The 'whites' in their communities wanted that same service for their 'sons' and daughters - that some minorities were receiving. . .and they received the assistance in THEIR COMMUNITY. I am glad I did some research on current Planned Parenthood practices - I was appalled. The staffs at almost all of the centers are being retrained as I type. Men who are interested in having some 'control' as to when they become a responsible parent should also avail themselves of THE appropriate training TO SOON BE OFFERED at ALL Planned Parenthood Centers. Parenthood is not just the responsibility of the 'woman'. If you are so concerned about OUR community, there are many opportunities for you to act as a mentor in Fayette County, or volunteer in some of the schools in Atlanta. OUR children need role models who are 'hands-on' in their approach to dealing with the reality of today. No one in America will succeed without a good education; no one in America will make a meaningful contribution without being aware of their own talents - and how they can be applied to better their community. I'm grateful that previous discussions in The Citizen made me aware of what I considered the misdirection of Planned Parenthood - and I was able to join with others to initiate a change. I'm sure that you are also making contributions to OUR COMMUNITY. Thanks.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
OMG DM you are amazing, no really, I mean it

you take a challenge to your statement that Sanger was just a feminist wanting rights for everyone and when I have more then PROVED that she was a Racist eugenic loving KILLER of the black community and you turn it into: "Well it was good for us"

I am at a loss for words. I really am. I am sitting here at my desk at work and I am speechless.

Go ahead DM keep selling our people into slavery, after all, the Nazis had Jews helping them (Soros) in their endeavors too.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
oou

Where in the Sam Hill do you work at 11:30 P.M.? Bless your heart. Good night. LOL! Maybe if you had availed yourself of a better education you wouldn't have the 11:30 p.m. shift. You are fortunate to have a job - and I congratulate you - but your attempt to put words in my mouth is juvenile. At least those who bother to read our posts realize that all 'blacks' don't necessarily agree on some issues - right?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
It's one of my own businesses Dm

I have three and it's only 10:30 here.
So bless your heart right back.

You said it now you want to backtrack from it. Proof was in the pudding.

btw- Again why is it only you Liberal/Progressives have a "proper" education and deem others educational status as not worthy.

If you can't argue and defend your points DM don't make them.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
OOU - Black and educated?

Your attempt to discredit others rather than discussing with some civility why you have formed your opinion makes one wonder at the quality of your education. It is apparent why you have formed your opinion that Margaret Sanger set out to 'kill' the black community. I have just presented 'facts' that may lead one to another opinion. You are right in line with those who would keep the 'black' community poor, uneducated, and afraid to step out and make progress by being responsible for the size of their families. I also worked diligently for a reform of the welfare system in this country that made a 'man' leave his home if he was unable to financially provide for it - so that his 'wife' could receive child support under the welfare system. Whites were also affected by this policy. There were many 'conservatives' that worked with 'liberals' to affect this change. Dependency on 'welfare' does not assist Americans. HOWEVER, during these difficult times following the recession, welfare has been truly a safety net for many Americans - regardless of 'race'. Don't pretend you're speaking for the 'black' community. No one person can do that. Your thoughts do not represent the majority of the 'black' community - and there are many successful, business-owning blacks who are Republican and fiscally conservative - who are proponents of civil and human rights. The current 'right-wing' conservatives are pushing minorities out of the Republican Party. Herman Cain is making a valiant effort - but we'll see if he gets the financial support from those who sing his praises here in Fayette County. Why don't you re-read the article "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" I have shared this 'conversation' with many 'blacks' in the metro Atlanta area. Some here may be laughing - but many are saddened in the community. Don't be used to discredit those who tried during difficult times to help women and minorities. They are our 'sheroes and heroes' - and there appears to be a concerted effort to demonize them.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
A clarification for OOU
Quote:

Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:41pm

Cal: I was going to let you know that your timer was off - but lo and behold, it was correct when I responded to OOU.

OOU - what is 'it' that you feel that I have backtracked from? Don't bother to answer me - but you may feel the need to continue to prove that you are right and I am wrong. As I stated earlier - I post in order to present a different point of view and encourage individual research.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
DM you started in this conversation with a defense of Sanger

I ask you to defend your argument that Sanger was just a freedom loving feminist. That was from your website YOU choose to enter the fray with.

You don't seem to want to or are not capable of doing so.

Asking you point blank questions is not attacking you in any way. I guess challenging you to defend your position is intimidating especially if you do not truly hold to that belief.

You do this a lot. You post opposing "viewpoints" to someones arguments then try to walk away from them when the poster challenges you on them. You do this by asserting all I am really doing is just "giving a different point of view thats all really".

Well if you present an opposing viewpoint then one can logically assume that you agree with that very viewpoint. If you do not then why post it?

So if by posting it and obviously you therefore agree with it then you must be able to defend that link. IF you can not then don't get offended when called out on it.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Excellent article, DM

I enjoyed reading that article. It put quite a bit of context around the eugenics movement of last century.

It won't stop the fringe right wingnuts here from trotting Margaret Sanger out as a bogeyman from time to time, but it's a good rebuttal.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
and Henry Ford...
Observerofu wrote:

DERP DERP DERP Planned Parenthood DERP DERP DERP?
DERP DERP DERP Margaret Sanger DERP DERP DERP

....and Henry Ford spent most of the latter part of his life promotin' The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion.

Using your patented illogic, that means anyone who drives or has ridden in a Ford supports anti-Semitism.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Uhh no bacon but your illogic

doesn't surprise me. Ford didn't build a car for the sole purpose of controlling an inferior race.
Sanger your idol did however set up planned parenthood for just that purpose.

But keep swinging there bacon. Even a blind squirrel can get a nut every now and then.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Sanger
Quote:

Ford didn't build a car for the sole purpose of controlling an inferior race.
Sanger your idol did however set up planned parenthood for just that purpose.

Sanger's involvement with the Eugenic philosophy has been documented and not denied. . .but your continued attempt to say that she founded PPH to control an 'inferior race' - is incorrect. Sanger wanted to control the size of ALL PERSONS SHE CONSIDERED INFERIOR - regardless of race. Her acceptance by the minority community during her lifetime was based on her understanding that often 'large' families remain uneducated and unproductive. Statically that can be found to be true - but there are always exceptions. Margaret Sanger was highly respected by the black leaders of the 20th century. PPH will probably be funded - at least their educational program - by the Federal government because many of the clientele will be 'poor' - and eligible for educational assistance programs, etc. The Republican House vote is not the end all to this controversy. There is the Senate - and the possibility of the president's veto.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
DM you are absolutely incorrect. I gave you her direct quote

on how eugenics will solve the "racial" issue in her book. She went on to explain that the black community needed to be controlled. Abortion was her TOOL to do so.

I am not going to rehash the argument any further it has been laid out clearly here.

Your continued attempt to apologize for her speaks volumes what a progressive/liberal black women would do for her ideology.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
OOU
Quote:

In my day, the Planned Parenthood Clinic was in the 'Wilshire' area of Los Angeles - and the clientele was overwhelmingly white/upper middle class.

Many of your statements were based on your interpretation of misleading 'facts'. I speak from experience. The early PPH centers were used by 'old fashioned families' who took their engaged daughters to these 'centers' to receive information for controlling their future families. (FITTED FOR CONTRACEPTIVE/DIAPHRAM) You can 'yell' all you want about Margaret Sanger wanting to 'kill' Black people. Some Black people may agree with you - but lo and behold - conservatives still criticize minority families for having children that they cannot take care of -and must turn to government for assistance. When will the hypocrisy end with you OOU? Progressive/liberal Black women continue to 'walk the walk'. We want the best for our community - and education and choice is what is 'best' for now.

Quote:

on how eugenics will solve the "racial" issue in her book. She went on to explain that the black community needed to be controlled. Abortion was her TOOL to do so.

Margaret Sanger, by her own words, was an elitist. She wanted to control all humans that she considered 'inferior' - and that included those with low IQ's, disease, etc., etc., etc. SHE DID NOT CONSIDER ALL MEMBERS OF THE BLACK RACE inferior. Some 'whites' made her list.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
OOU
Quote:

Sanger your idol did however set up planned parenthood for just that purpose.

In my day, the Planned Parenthood Clinic was in the 'Wilshire' area of Los Angeles - and the clientel was overwhelmingly white/upper middle class. Today, that 'group' can go to their private physicians for pre-marital counseling regarding their reproductive organs - or any daytime TV show. (Pre-marital - I guess that is a foreign term now when it comes to 'sex'.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
DM let's explore your defense of Eugenics and the killing of

the black race.

Now I really want to go there. Please read and respond to the post above. This has perked my interest how a black women would defend a self avowed white supremacist who's sole mission for creating Planned Parenthood was to control the black (mud) races.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
OOU
Quote:

DM let's explore your defense of Eugenics and the killing of
the black race.

I presented an article that dealt with Sanger's 'racism'. I did not 'defend' Eugenics. Good night dear soul. (And share this with whoever is telling you how to deal with a black woman who is a Democrat - you need help.)

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
DM by presenting a defense of Sanger

you either believe it or you don't. If you believe it then defend it. If you don't then why did you post it?

Fact is deep down you, know you can't. You know just who and what she was. You may not have when you jumped knee deep in this but it only takes about 5 minutes of reading to discover who this person was, a despicable human being.

Unfortunately the progressive movement forces all disciples to give up their principles for the "greater good".

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
To those who 'read' OOU

This individual who claims they represent 'conservative values' when it comes to 'race' may be a bigoted fraud. Please do your own research if you have a question about the intended purpose of Planned Parenthood - and who partook of their services in the 50's and 60's. Dick Gregory warned the 'black' community not to use 'birth control', for we needed the numbers in order to exert power at the ballot box. However, Dick Gregory was a good father who supported his children and assisted his wife in the raising of his family. Not all American women were so fortunate - black or white - and needed education so that they could make a choice about motherhood. Church's and parents should have been the leaders in this responsibility. Abstinence has been taught as a CHOICE. Birth control methods have been taught as a CHOICE. Abortion has been offered as a CHOICE - and there are those who rightly feel that taxpayer money should not pay for that CHOICE. That is law as it stands today. There are those who feel they have the right to KILL those who work in abortion clinics. That is against the law. Many early leaders are being called 'racist'. Many were - and many current leaders are 'racist'. The United States - even with all of it's lofty goals, is viewed as racist because of the practice of segregation that only ended legally in the 20th Century. Segregation is apartheid, American style. To try to change FACTS by changing the historical record is a plot of SOME right-wingers. All 'social' programs in our early history were addressed by racial identity. . . .and Margaret Sanger along with the 'Negro' leaders of that day was no different. However, she is credited and respected by some in the Black community and by some in today's Black population for given minority women the same CHOICE that the 'majority' population enjoyed. Underground abortion clinics operate today - and the result of 'botched' abortions is a crime. Education and religious/parental guidance is needed for conquering the 'root' causes of this problem. Even young women from 'good' homes find themselves in a predicament where they need to make a choice in 'sync' with their religious beliefs and home training. GOVERNMENT should not be involved in this choice - IMO.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Excuse me DM care to explain yourself?

I simply expose the dirty little underside of planned parenthood, who their founder is, a Eugenics loving racist and according to you I am bigoted fraud???

Just how do you come to that conclusion. I mean I know going on the offense when you can't defend your arguments is a tried and true bacon tactic, but just how did you get there?

It seems like you and Bacon are the one's trying to scare pregnant women into no choice at all. I mean with Bacons unverified ad hominem attacks on Christian Pregnancy centers and now your blind stabbing out at anyone that exposes the actual HISTORY of Planned Parenthood and just where it's roots really are.

I mean DM this whole thing started when you jumped into the conversation with this:

Davids mom wrote:

Another 'opinion' on Margaret Sanger's racism. You must expose yourself to other opinions - and realize that others have a different opinion than your so-called FACTS.

http://feministsforchoice.com/was-margaret-sanger-a-racist.htm

I simply asked you to defend YOUR position and you could not do it and this gets me branded by you as being a bigoted fraud? I mean that's absolutely incredible.

I am not sure which one of you is worse Bacon calling me a "BOY" or you turning on your own race just to promote an ideology.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"No choice at all"?

Telling women not to go to Christian Predator centers gives them "no choice at all"?

People are laughing at you, bigot.

p.s. Look up the definition of "ad hominem" next time before trying to use it. Having a negative opinion of a thing or a concept is not "ad hominem", bigot, no matter what they taught you in homeskool.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
I used it precisely Racist

"Ad hominem -
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. "

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
You used it precisely wrong, moron

I attacked the concept of Christian Predator centers, not the individual who brought them up. You can't hang an "ad hominem" fallacy on a concept or thing, only a person.

Please tell us you're not this ignorant in real life.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Incorrect my dear RACIST Bacon

Used as an adjective:

ad hominem
–adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Go argue with a dictionary because you are showing your ignorance. Too much time in Socialist I mean Sociology class huh?

You attacked Christian Pregnancy Centers and those that support them as extremist and you claimed these groups were predators and made multiple claims of wrong doing. When challenged you then claimed it was your opinion. There is no better example of an ad hominem attack.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=character-attack

This was and is your argument RACIST.

This is not the first time you have been brought to task for the very same reasons. Hutch exposed your false attacks here:

http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/10-05-2010/volunteers-raise-roof-and-...

BaconSniffles:

hutch866 wrote:

So I guess what you're saying here is that you ACTUALLY know nothing about this place, but you can still offer an opinion about it. Pretty broad brush stroke there, of course that's just an opinion I've formed from reading about people like you. The fact that you believe you know my opinion about Westboro Baptist Church or would give them the benefit of the doubt, even though I've never EVER mentioned them in any of my posts or opinions tells me that your informed defensible position is in doubt. In fact, it seems that any facts you can't find you can make up. I will admit that was a pretty good deflection of the subject you made there.

and AHG as well:

AtHomeGym wrote:

I distinctively remember when you were verbally discussing the economy with Steve Lindsey (No, I don't call it a "debate"), you were insistant about using facts versus opinions, yet on this issue and this facility, you have no facts that I can discern. So what is driving your interest in this thing at all? Are you just looking for some citizen blog conflict or what?

and Cyclist:

Cyclist wrote:

from your vantage point do you consider all groups that oppose abortion extremist or just this one?

You hate it when the seamier side of your sacred cow is exposed.

So my dear RACIST Bacon go burn your cross some where else.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Bigot Observerofu

I know I've gotten the better of an argument with you when you go into cut-n-paste-apalooza.

You cut and paste the dictionary.com definition of "ad hominem". The dictionary definition is wrong...now before you piss your pants in self-righteousness, let me explain.

I realize you've most likely never finished high school, let alone gone to college, but there is a branch of philosophy known as Logic.

In logic, we have formally structured proofs. There are about 3 dozen "automatic disqualifiers" to these proofs, these are known as logical fallacies.

The most common logical fallacy is "ad hominem". In Latin (by "Latin" I refer to the ancient language, not the Hispanic people you so despise) this translates to "to the man", i.e. an argument against the character of the man, not addressing the argument itself. PERIOD.

Dictionary.com lists "appeals to predjudices, emotions or special interest" as a component of "ad hominem". They are incorrect. From a logic standpoint, this is absolutely incorrect. Appeals to prejudices and emotions are a separate and distinct logical fallacy known as, not surprisingly, "Appeal to Emotion".

Appeals to special interests are known in logical proofs as "Special pleading".

Now then, the fact remains that you are still absolutely 100% wrong referring to my argument as "ad hominem". You seem to be unable or unwilling to understand that just because someone disagrees with you, that does not make your opponent's argument "ad hominem", even by the defective definition given by dictionary.com

I challenge you to show us where I "appealed to prejudices, emotions or special interests" or where I made a personal attack on a person making the argument. Show me a DIRECT QUOTE for a change instead of telling us what you think I said.

I offered my opinion that these so-called "pregnancy resource centers", which I choose to refer to as "Christian predator centers", prey on scared unsuspecting teenagers. If you've got a problem with me calling them "Christian predator centers", well my friend I've got a problem with them calling themselves "pregnancy resource centers" when by their own admission they do more "Christian counseling" than things like pregnancy testing. Perhaps we could compromise and refer to them as "Compulsory Fundamentalist Christian Indoctrination Centers".

Over to you, big boy. Let's see you respond to my challenge.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Here ya go. Took less than 30 seconds
Observerofu]<strong>Christian Predator Centers</strong>
[quote=Chris P. Bacon
wrote:

Like hungry vultures circling young prey, the Christian Predator Center preys on scared, vulnerable young women, seeking to coerce them into their Fundie brand of Christianity.

With the possible exception of Taliban Trey Hoffman and the Spanish Inquisition, they represent the absolute worst elements of Christianity.

You see by attacking the people at the center and then trying to disqualify their view by equating them to the Taliban or Spanish Inquisition then you have fallen into the
logical fallacy argument.

Thanks. But I guess you didn't really say this did you?
I mean you said you didn't do that right?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=character-attack

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
If I were to say "Hitler was evil"...

Once again, I was presenting my OPINION. Disagreeing with something you happen to like is NOT ad hominem, chuckles.

If I were to say "Hitler was evil", would that be "ad hominem" in your mind?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
No incorrect again

You can say Hitler was evil without it being an ad hominem attack. However if I were to say Hitler was evil and you attacked me about how I used a NYT
headline without arguing the issue then this is considered an ad hominem. See how it works.

An ad hominem is an argument based on the real or perceived faults of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack.

When you levy a personal attack against "Christians" (you called them predators amongst other things) based on no real evidence and then refuse to argue the merits of the center. You fulfilled the logical fallacy requirement of the description. Your OPINION was an attack note the perceived portion of the description.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Getting squeezed

Let us continue your remedial education regarding "ad hominem" HERE

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon

"Bigot Observerofu", "Racist Observerofu"?

How can you appeal to a special interest when you are one?

I don't know your motive, but you are a special interest for government control.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
That's.....that's....DIFFERENT!

I know you didn't get enough oxygen when you were born, but try and follow:

You were making your usual pathetic attempt to conflate the Planned Parenthood organization with the eccentric beliefs of its founder.

I replied it made as much sense as trying to conflate the Ford Motor company with the eccentric beliefs of its founder.

Naturally, you took offense to the obvious comparison.

"Oh NOE!" you squealed in your girlish voice. "That's.....that's....DIFFERENT!"

Everyone here laughs at your double standard. How different your life would be if you applied the same standard to yourself that you insist others abide by.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Ok bacon if it helps you sleep at night

Ford made cars to kill people.

Now do you feel better?

btw- keep applying your low self esteem issues to "everyone" else. I love how you seem able to speak for everyone while taking fire from every corner.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
So now you're inferring...

So now you're inferring that Planned Parenthood kills people?

People are laughing at you, boy.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - do you

Do you believe that it is appropriate for PPH to get government funding?

Or do you believe that if PPH has a case for giving women a choice they should simply do this on their own with funding provided directly by people of your thinking?

If you believe that PPH should get government funding, do you also believe that organizations that support non-abortion alternatives should get government funding?

Do you think this funding should be equal?

These are simply yes or no answers.

Just wondering if your position is consistent with your philosophy of using government largess for social engineering.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Petey C

My apologies for not seeing this post last night, it was lost amid the "drown 'em out" vitriol of your whiny bigoted race-baiting bumchum Osamaforu.

To answer all your questions, in order: Yes, No, No, and No.

Here is my reasoning, on the slight chance you might be interested:

Americans want the government to provide a medical safety net for the poor. Planned Parenthood provides birth control to lower-income women. Birth control for women is largely done on a prescription basis, making it altogether fitting that it receives government funding as a bonafide medical provider.

Government funding helps to prevent year-to-year budgetary fluctuations caused by the uncertainty of charitable giving.

The government does not subsidize religious indoctrination. It will not, for example, pay for a woman to visit a witch doctor or faith healer. As such, it would be wholly inappropriate for the government to reimburse women for visits to centers that are primarily concerned with religious indoctrination.

I salute you on your wonderfully worded "gotcha" questions, and hopefully have answered them to your satisfaction.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - Yes

Yes you did thanks.

I think you meant to say that "Some Americans want...." It is not clear that a majority of Americans want the government involved in birth control by any means.

Birth control, by pill, injections, or implants are non-abortion methods. We disagree that government should be involved. PPH should be privately funded, IMO.

Charity is crowded out by government.

Finally, these were not "gotcha" questions. I told you specifically I wanted to find out if you were consistent. Sadly, let's just say that you are.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
What 'some Americans want'

Petey, let me ask you a question: does your health insurance policy cover birth control for women? Most insurance policies do cover that.

If so, why shouldn't poor Americans be provided the same level of coverage via Medicare/Medicaid? Should we pick and choose what coverages that poor people do without that we ourselves enjoy?

My policy doesn't cover elective plastic surgery or liposuction or hair grafts....neither should Medicare/Medicaid.

My policy covers kidney dialysis....should we deny poor people kidney dialysis to teach them a lesson for treating their kidneys poorly?

That's a somewhat specious example but the point I'm making is that either you offer the same level of coverage to the poor as most people enjoy or you don't...this business of politicizing medicine is wrong.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - we agree

"politicizing medicine is wrong."

I think we may be getting somewhere here. The fact that government is IN healthcare makes it political.

I agree with most of what you say, I disagree about the method. The government is not the entity that should be doing any of this.

This is fundamental difference between us.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bacon are you making a RACIST comment towards me

"People are laughing at you, boy."

Not that I am one of those black men that see racist around every corner BUT
from you I suspect this is more true then not.

Going to call me a Nigg*r next? Going to say my daughter is a crack whore again because you know only black women use crack and of course are whores as well?

And you call me a bigot.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Pro-life and Pro-Christian

Also, Pro-Jew, Pro-Islam, Pro-Buddha, Pro-Hindu, and 10,000 other brands, I assume?

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
Beware of the Pregnancy Resource Centers

For those women hoping for professional help and medical attention when encountering an unwanted pregnancy, these pregnancy resources centers are NOT bound to follow HIPAA privacy laws, since they are not medically licensed. Women are giving up their personal sexual history—their medical history—to volunteers instead of medical professionals and the centers can do whatever they like with it, or event tell whomever they like.

Think twice before you trust these places with your health and privacy.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Christian Predator Centers

Like hungry vultures circling young prey, the Christian Predator Center preys on scared, vulnerable young women, seeking to coerce them into their Fundie brand of Christianity.

With the possible exception of Taliban Trey Hoffman and the Spanish Inquisition, they represent the absolute worst elements of Christianity.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Another example of an ad hominem attack

Christian Predator Centers

Chris P. Bacon wrote:

Like hungry vultures circling young prey, the Christian Predator Center preys on scared, vulnerable young women, seeking to coerce them into their Fundie brand of Christianity.

With the possible exception of Taliban Trey Hoffman and the Spanish Inquisition, they represent the absolute worst elements of Christianity.

You see by attacking the people at the center and then trying to disqualify their view by equating them to the Taliban or Spanish Inquisition then you have fallen into the
logical fallacy argument.

Thanks. But I guess you didn't really say this did you?
I mean you said you didn't do that right?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=character-attack

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Thanks Bacon

You have just confirmed your atheistic credentials. Carry on about mocking God, now. Regardless of the utility of these centers, I know from where you are coming.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
wedge

"judgement" is the Lord's, isn't it?

I doubt the Lord prefers coathangers instead of our best science!
There must be an enormous group of atheists if abortion is damnation.

I think most of these people are probably agnostics. They simply don't know.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Wedge

Please, brother Wedge, go Cheney yourself.

I despise fundamentalist Christians who mock both God and Christ by coercing people into following Christ. That is the antithesis of the tenets of Christianity. Christians should enter the faith of their own free will.

You seem to want to pigeonhole me into your stereotype of the "godless librul". I'm quite happy and content in my faith. Are you?

p.s. same disgust also holds for those who would legislate their own interpretation of Christian morality upon everyone, and yes I'm talking about you, Mr. "Archbishop of Sharpsburg"....

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
hmmmmmmm

Coercion is the hallmark of the progressive state, there Bacon. It does not exist without coercion. Now I believe in free will, especially that I have the right to follow or not follow God. I do not see how voluntary crisis couseling becomes coercion unless mandated by the state. Sort of like requiring private health insurance. I will reap what I sow. Now I am a person of nuance, for example... I do not have any pause when it comes to medication that keeps and egg from implanting against a wall. I do not care if someone drinks or gambles as it is legal and nobody is forcing one to do that conduct. Now I find you especially interesting... you think that God gives people cancer if they run companies that hold layoffs or scale back benefits. God feels mocked by a very common place thing-give caesar what is caesar. God is mocked when somebody performs the Great Commission and takes it as a duty from God. But God is perfectly okay with taking a vacuum spike, puncturing a 34 week term inutero baby and sucking out its brains and collapsing the skull. It your world God is honored in this human transaction. Now understand--I am comfortable with everything about me. Also I have zero ties to Sharpsburg. Now, I have met you and found you unlikeable in person. Your poor opinion of me gives me no pause or loss of sleep as I am sure that mine affects you not. Now understand this one--you will wind up getting banned and changing your moniker again sooner or later and I will not. You will do as you have done

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Brother Wedge
The Wedge wrote:

Coercion is the hallmark of the progressive state, there Bacon. It does not exist without coercion. Now I believe in free will, especially that I have the right to follow or not follow God. I do not see how voluntary crisis couseling becomes coercion unless mandated by the state. Sort of like requiring private health insurance. I will reap what I sow.

Most people would agree that there is a fundamental difference between government "coercion" and forced religion. Government "coercion" dictates that we drive on the right side of the road...rules and laws ("coercion") are necessary as the foundations of an orderly society.

If you went to McDonalds and were forced to endure a 15 minute one-on-one religious counseling session, trying to get you to convert your beliefs to, say, Scientology, you might feel a tad deceived and you could walk out.

Suppose however, you were absolutely broke and had no money, would you agree to this "counseling session"? What if they made receiving a happy meal contingent upon rejecting Jesus and accepting L. Ron Hubbard as your personal savior? Gee, you sure are hungry.... That, brother Wedge, is the essence of predatory religion.

The same thing applies to these Christian Predator Centers. They prey upon the young and the desparate.

The Wedge wrote:

Now I am a person of nuance, for example... I do not have any pause when it comes to medication that keeps and egg from implanting against a wall. I do not care if someone drinks or gambles as it is legal and nobody is forcing one to do that conduct.

It is good to know that you are not dogmatic. I'll try and keep that in mind.

The Wedge wrote:

Now I find you especially interesting... you think that God gives people cancer if they run companies that hold layoffs or scale back benefits. God feels mocked by a very common place thing-give caesar what is caesar. God is mocked when somebody performs the Great Commission and takes it as a duty from God.

Grubby Herman Cain, once again. My statement really bothered you, I see. We've been over this ground before. Bottom Line: If you believe that Herman Cain's colon cancer showing up shortly after he caused untold suffering on thousands of lower income workers by removing their health insurance was a "coincidence", more power to you. I, however, do not believe in "coincidence".

The Wedge wrote:

But God is perfectly okay with taking a vacuum spike, puncturing a 34 week term inutero baby and sucking out its brains and collapsing the skull. It your world God is honored in this human transaction.

You know, this is the second time this week that you've attempted to ascribe positions to me, positions that I do not hold. I wish you would stop doing that.

For the record, my position on abortion is the following: Abortion on demand, without delay, without restriction, for any time up to 21 weeks. I oppose abortion after 22 weeks gestation. A fetus is not viable outside the womb prior to 22 weeks. Am I clear enough for you? I'm a nuanced guy like you, you see.

The Wedge wrote:

Now understand--I am comfortable with everything about me. Also I have zero ties to Sharpsburg. Now, I have met you and found you unlikeable in person. Your poor opinion of me gives me no pause or loss of sleep as I am sure that mine affects you not.

I am glad you don't lose sleep over opinions I might voice (with the obvious exception of grubby Herman Cain, of course).

I apologize for the poorly worded Archbishop of Sharpsburg reference...I was in a hurry. What I meant to say was that I will not stand for anyone, particularly the likes of David Epps, to dictate my morality by force of law.

The Wedge wrote:

Now understand this one--you will wind up getting banned and changing your moniker again sooner or later and I will not. You will do as you have done

You may be right, I might just get banned. This is a conservative site. Cal does an admirable job of tolerating librul opinion. Like you, I am very passionate about my beliefs, unlike you, I don't always hold back. Inflammatory conservative rhetoric seems to be better tolerated here than Librul rhetoric. And so it goes.

p.s. did you take my advice and go Cheney yourself yet? ;)

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Have to agree with Main Stream here

While it all seems like a great idea for alternatives to abortion and support, all it takes is one part-time zealot volunteer who suddenly decides its in your best interest to have all your personal and medical history plastered all over the Internet or your employer contacted that you are considering the possibility of having an abortion, even when you are just getting information and considering all the options.

In 2011, there is a TON of risk involved in giving up all your information to unlicensed volunteers on anything, especially this issue.