Skip to comments.Abortionists defend agreeing to target blacks
Posted on 05/17/2008 12:47:07 PM PDT by wagglebee
The Ohio branch of the leading player in the nation's abortion industry, Planned Parenthood, is blaming the callers for a fiasco in which a local official was caught on tape agreeing to take a donation designated to eliminate blacks.
WND has reported previously on the work of Lila Rose, editor of the Los Angeles-based Advocate, who has conducted several undercover investigations of Planned Parenthood.
In one taped interview, an Idaho official for Planned Parenthood said it was "understandable" that a donor would want to contribute to abortions targeting blacks so that his own, presumably white, child would have less competition in college.
In the Ohio case, a wire report now has characterized those recorded interviews as "prank phone calls." The report also quotes a spokeswoman for the "health care provider" saying they were just an "attempt to portray Planned Parenthood as racist."
The Associated Press report said the caller to a Columbus, Ohio, clinic "asks a receptionist if he can make a donation that will be used to underwrite abortions on minorities because there are 'definitely way too many black people in Ohio.'"
The response from Planned Parenthood's employee? "OK, whatever."
Now Columbus Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Stephanie Tresso has told the AP the conversation took place, but accused the callers of "just another attempt to discredit the organization."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Evil. No other word for it.
Just my opinion of course.
Is anyone really shocked at this? These are the same scum who would go so far as to defend Adolf Hitler just so they could attack President Bush!
And a pretty successful attempt at that.
Ms Tresso is absolutely correct. Planned Parenthood is indeed totally discredited as a ferociously racist baby killing criminal entity.
The employee saying “OK, whatever.” translates to me as saying “I don’t give a rats butt what you think the money is going for, just cut the check and get off my phone.” “Ok, Whatever” is not like laughing or agreeing. Quite the opposite.
Under the “less competition” approach, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference what race the competition is.
I suspect that the PP people are repulsed by these calls, but play along with the caller because they’ll take their money without ever intending to target Black people. I’d be happy to take money from someone asking for it to be used to, say, elect Democrats. Meanwhile, I’d be thinking to myself, “In your dreams, pal.”
The Left appears to have a problem with black people. After all, they banned DDT and look what happened in Africa.
Planned Parenthood is just another whore of the devil. When they and their USA political lackeys get to the front door of hell, they will begin to comprehend reality.
This sounds like a really ringing endorsement of the callers proposition. Kind of like when you ask your teenager to take out the garbage, “OK, whatever.” You want to make book on whether the garbage gets taken out?
Bottom line, the left WILL target and eliminate any and all opposition if given the power...a really well-defined piece related to the elimination of the terms ‘jihadist, islamofascism, etc.’ by our US State Dept. and DHS fits into this theme...L. Auster expressed that the leftist mind-set very well with this short piece related to the Ontario Human Rights Commission vs Mark Steyn on islamofascism...Human Rights commissions are right in line with the worlds’ leftist drive to eliminate all opposition.
In this case regarding Planned Parenthood and blacks, the left, Planned Parenthood, is targeting blacks right in line with Austers’ piece, which is as good a definition of the leftist mindset that there is. Islamphobes, such as M. Steyn, in Austers’ essay, are targeted just as blacks are by Planned Parenthood in this posted piece.
The essay by Auster deserves a wider audience...http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010605.html
Here it is complete...
Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
All People Are Good, Except You
By The Brussels Journal
Created 2008-05-15 09:48
A quote from Lawrence Auster at his blog, 15 May 2008
The key to the [Ontario Human Rights] Commission’s thinking is in its labeling, as wrongful “Islamophobia,” the view that Islam is a threat to the West. The assumption underlying such a judgment, whether about Islamophobia or bigotry generally, is that all people are good (except for people who don’t believe that all people are good), and that no people can be a threat (except for those people who believe that some people can be a threat). Since all people (that is, all people who don’t hate nothing except hatred) are good, and since no people are enemies (except for the people who believe that there are enemies), any negative statement about a group (except for negative statements about the society’s own majority group) is by definition a false, vicious, dehumanizing attack on that group.
The core error of this liberal view is that it never considers the possibility that some people and groups (other than the majority peoples of the West) may indeed be enemies. Specifically, it never entertains the possibility that Islam is in fact a threat to the West. If Islam is a threat to the West, then saying that Islam is a threat to the West is not an act of bigotry but a statement of truth and part of a legitimate effort to protect the West from a real enemy. By condemning and punishing such defense as illegal bigotry, modern liberalism prohibits the West from defending itself.
In short, liberalism has taken group conflict, a normal feature of human history, and turned it into an immoral act, with the further twist that only the West is capable of exhibiting such immorality against other groups, while other groups are incapable of exhibiting the same immorality against the West.
How does liberalism get away with seeing only Westerners’ negative statements about Islam as wrongful, but not Muslims’ threatening statements about the West? Very simple. Under liberalism, there is no society “here” to be attacked. Under liberalism, Canada is not a substantive entity—not a nation, not a culture, not a people, not a “group.” Canada is, instead, a system for the promotion of human rights. Not being a concrete group or culture, Canada cannot be an object of bigotry. But Muslims and other immigrants, who are concrete entities, can be objects of bigotry. Muslims are a group and therefore deserve to be protected from discrimination. Canadians are not a group and therefore do not require protection from discrimination.
In short, Western peoples do not need protection under the modern liberal order because modern liberalism, in its very premises, has already defined the Western peoples out of existence. This is why it’s a waste of time looking for liberals and mainstream conservatives (who accept the premises of liberalism as much as the liberals do) to protect us. Under modern liberalism, the Western peoples have already in principle ceased to exist, and all that’s left is the mopping up operation.
The Commission, by the way, makes an interesting Freudian slip. After pointing out that Ontario’s anti-discrimination laws do not infringe on publications and books, it mentions the more sweeping anti-discrimination laws in other Canadian jurisdictions, with the obvious intent that Ontario emulate them:
Limits to freedom of expression under some other human rights legislation in Canada are broader, stating that no person shall publish, issue or display before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol or other representation.
Of course the Commission left out a phrase. It meant to say something along the lines that no person shall publish any statement, symbol, etc. “that discriminates against anyone.” By leaving out the words, “that discriminates against anyone,” the Commission makes it sound as though the law prohibits all statements, publications, and symbols, period. Meaning, the total cessation of public writing and speaking. I call this a Freudian slip because, as argued here, the prohibition of all discourse is the logical end toward which liberalism is really heading.
Obviously, this Idaho official is not a basketball fan.
Exactly, it’s Sales 101. Don’t argue with your customer when he’s thinking up good reasons to give you money.
This is the same PC “gotcha” game that the libs constantly use against us. It’s fun to see the tables turned for once, but it’s not productive.
Low-level Planned Barrenhood workers most likely think they are doing a noble thing by killing off unwanted children. You know, making sure that their clients aren’t “punished with a baby” and can resume their irresponsible, slutty lifestyles in short order. I see no evidence to indicate that their interest lies in ethnic cleansing.
Besides... isn’t murder still a lot worse than prejudice, here on the Right?
That's deep man.(;>)
It almost certainly kills off a large number of future gangbangers, muggers, rapists, and murderers as well.
Doing the right thing sometimes requires great sacrifice. Admittedly this makes "life" an even harder sell to the general public.
As a side note: if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the blue states wouldn't ban abortion anyway, and it is highly unlikely that Congress would either.
There’s an implied link to affirmative action.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
You can go ahead and admit to whatever you want to. That assertion of yours makes you sound like one sick b*stard.
WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU TWO??? You want to try proving that, pally? Want to post some links, cite some stats? Oh, that's right--YOU CAN'T. All you're really doing by spouting that kind of bs is validating a pro-abortion belief. Stick with the facts, if you don't mind.
Abortion violently ends the life of an individual, unique human being, period. SHEESH.
Duh! And a damn effectively.
Members of the demographic group(s) who abort the most babies are overwhelmingly more likely to commit crimes and vote Democratic. The quantitative evidence is right there in front of you.
One could also make a number of valid arguments regarding mothers who are willing to kill their babies. They too, are probably not conservatives, probably do not attend church, probably live irresponsibly, and are less likely to raise children who become productive members of society. Unfortunately there are few if any numbers to confirm or deny this sort of speculation.
That is not evidence that the babies aborted would have gone on to become democrats, thieves, addicts, murderers, second-grade public school teachers, the Pope, or anything else. No such evidence exists. You are attempting to validate abortion, the intentional murder of an innocent life, by claiming that it is for the good of society.
Do us all a favor and admit that you are pro-abortion. Be forthright. Let us know where you stand. But DON'T try to establish a cause and effect relationship between abortion and criminal acts not yet committed. That might fly on some other forum, but not here.
It is possible to make reasonably accurate projections based on what we know about their backgrounds. Time to face facts: most kids born into trashy underclass families don't stand a chance.
Do us all a favor and admit that you are pro-abortion.
Opposing abortion doesn't mean you get to ignore the social costs of prohibiting it.
The libs don't understand the law of unintended consequences. We're better than them; educate yourself.
That’s something I’ve thought about. The Democrats would have a lot more support today if they weren’t so dead-set on allowing their babies to be aborted.
In a sick sort of way, that very fact makes the fight against abortion easier.
Libspeak. Pure, 100% libspeak. You sound like you're quoting PP, fcol.
Hold on tight to those "possibilities" and to your "reasonably accurate projections." They are meaningless when compared to the cold, hard fact that you are obstinately refusing to admit, which I will post once more: Abortion is the intentional, deliberate murder of an innocent, unique human life. I get it. You're okay with that.
You could have saved me a lot of wasted time arguing with you by simply stating "I am pro-abortion." Coward.
I think we can all agree that abortion is one of the great evils of our time, but you can't ignore the fact that there would be even more Democrats and other undesirables without it. And let's face facts - aside from a few zealots, most Americans care a lot more about crime (and other issues affecting them directly) than the rights of the unborn.
You have utterly failed to convince me (a fellow conservative, no less) that it is in my own best interest to support your position. How do you expect to sell the pro-life message to moderates and independents?