Account Login

Email Address
Remember Me -
* Recover Password
* Create FREE account


On The Other Hand


Created on 09/13/2012
by Hanther

Around 97% of Planned Parenthood budget is in women’s (and children) health and of course contraception, so actually they are preventing more abortions than they are sanctioning, and the children being born to those who use their services are healthier and have a better start in life, since their mothers are healthier too.
As long as abortion is legal in America the campaign against PP because of abortion is actually self defeating. I like to think of it on the level of the Childrens Crusade. A certain Supreme Court decision has to be overturned before the argument has any validity, other than the “well, they sanction murder so they are inherently evil no matter what else they do.” And that is certainly a valid way to look at it if you are so inclined, and I do believe you are. What then do we say about US arms merchants of death…well that’s another subject for another time…
As for Sanger and eugenics, as you know with Ayn on the subject of abortion, not all views express by the founder of an organization reflect the current values or worth of that organization. Eugenics were big in the 30’s, lots of endorsements by lots of people, but only Hitler had the balls to really act on it. Eugenics = Racism by another name, but there you have it. We hope to progress as a society and I try not to judge people or things on something that was said 80 years before. The Founding Fathers endorsed slavery in the Constitution, do we throw the whole thing out now because of that tainted beginning?

And all of this still begs my original question to you. Enforcement, for freedom-wise and civil rights –wise that is the crux of the matter. The moral implications aside; for that is a matter of persuasion, not force; what powers are you going to grant the beltway regime to enforce your moral view, the same ones you object to so much when they enforce RvW?

Oh by the way the dismissal of an argument by the “the same old (liberal/conservative) line” statement, does not address the validity of the argument. Just because it’s been said for 50 years does not mean it is wrong or the statement is untrue. It just means it won’t be addressed on its merits yet again.

-Willie from Cleveland

Thanks for your note.

(Below is the revised answer to Willie's note. Normally, when I post something, I read over it several times before releasing it. This reply is the exception. I was rushed for time and did not conduct the critical scan that I normally do. The problem is not content of my reply, but my sloppy choice of words. My apologies.)

I hold Sanger responsible for what she said way back when cos any casual observation of Planned Parenthood today reveals her prejudices remain standard operational procedure for her organization in 2012. I also hold Rand responsible for the decisions she made and George Washington for his decisions. For that matter, I hold God Almighty responsible for any and all decisions from him since monkeys climbed down from trees and started walking on their hind legs. A refusal to judge evil is to advocate evil; always has been, always is, and always will be. Murder is murder and that is black and white with no shades of gray.

I am delighted to learn Planned Parenthood does some good things to offset their program for the extermination of children. I understand the Nazis also did wonderful things (aside from murdering 1.5 million Jewish children) such as repairing the German economy, providing full employment, creating summer camps for German children, improving health care and providing other worthwhile services. What a nice bunch of guys!

I would suggest some caution in linking my moral barometer to the Supreme Court. You might remember this is the institution that handed down the famous Dred Scott decision and the institution that re-wrote the Messiah’s health regulation so as to be able to uphold it. We need a more reliable moral anchor than a bunch of old people in black dresses who are mostly concerned if they will still be invited to the proper Beltway cocktail parties than to any particulars of law. Laws are written by men, most of whom are not particularly bright, nor do they have a very enviable moral standard.

I have absolutely no interest in having the Beltway Regime enforce my moral view. I simply wish to expose individual Americans to a different set of values than those supporting this murder for profit administration.

If an argument was faulty and ill advised half a century ago, it does not gain validity and stature with the passage of time. With age the absurdity only becomes more obvious.

How come it happens, when the issue of what to do about unplanned for kids comes up, the preferred option for this regime is always to kill 'em?

I have trouble believing anyone can so enthusiasticly defending murderers whose hands are dripping with blood all the way past their elbows, people who will kill for the most trivial of reasons. By the defense of wholesale slaughter, one places one’s self in the company of questionably famous people, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Fidel, Joe Stalin, Mao, Adolf, persons of distinction all.