Down a Rabbit Hole: Planned Parenthood, Mt Sinai School of Medicine, and Carl Icahn.

a reply to: zosimov

I'm talking about that statement specifically and the fact that nothing said in that statement is a bad thing. There is nothing being said there that includes hurting people by any of the methods you just said. You are inserting those other ideas in there and then blaming others for saying them.

I've also given you a perfectly good example of a changing value and how it was a benefit that we changed it and you seem to just ignore that and refuse to admit that changing some values can be good.

That doesn't mean that we should change every value we have, but the idea that we should never change them is just as incorrect. You have just as much of an agenda behind what you are saying as those you are alleging have their own agenda.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'll admit that I am very wary of self styled philanthropists as well, perhaps I have a warped view of those in charge.

However, the perpetual warfare, the lobbyists, Monsanto, impunity of corporations which pollute the land/water sources, rising incidences of cancer, deliberate falsification or suppression of history, etc have made me very suspicious of our politicians and world players.

And we, as a whole, are not thriving the way we can be. Our light could be so much brighter.

I read your slavery statement. I am indeed glad that slavery is over. I just honestly don't like the tactic of accusing those disagreeing with you of supporting horrendous stuff, so I chose to ignore it.

I think we are missing each other in the word value, which imo is different than the world ideal. I agree that ideals might change but disagree that values ever change because things that have worth (generosity, forgiveness, mercy, love, kindness, fortitude, wisdom, truth) will always have worth (ie value) regardless of what a person or society thinks of these values, or whether they practice them.

I believe that a campain is being launched to blur the lines between right and wrong. To expose us to so much wrong (through the news, reality tv, whatnot) that our compasses are off. To make us truly believe that there are no inherent values. That they can change as we "grow" which I disagree with! I think thousands of years ago, people loved. They cared for their neighbors, they tended the earth, they created art. There have always been people with these values, just like there have always been people trying to destroy these values.

So I don't quite like what the humanists are trying to do, under the guise (ok there that is my opinion) of philanthropy. Why specifically remove God from the good also, and alienate millions of people who are also "humanists"? Can't I believe in God and also the beauty of God's creation? I think it's odd. At best.

I'm not giving up on this thread yet!

Who's with me?


THE MOST FRIGHTENING THING IN THE WORLD TO THE POWERS THAT BE IS CREATIVE INDIVIDUALITY



LET'S BE INDIVIDUALS TOGETHER!!! We can take it down!!!

I remember a statement from the late Allen Gootmacher, one of the medical directors of Planned Parenthood and he said, "Well, if people limit their families and do what we say, fine. But if we need compulsory population control, we're going to have it."

weather you like this statement or not, I find it hard that anyone disagrees the the truth in it since if all else fails, mother nature will control the human population herself by running out of the natural resources that the human population requires to survive.
so many people go out of their way to accuse planned parenthood of eugenics, while totally overlooking some of the other means that we in use during the same time, or the means that had been used throughout history. if one was to look at all of the avenues that the eugenics was beginning at the same time as planned parenthood was springing up, and compared them to each other, I kind of think that planned parenthood kind of stood out apart from the others because of one thing...
while the forced sterilizations were being directed at certain groups, groups that the eugenicists had decided weren't beneficial to society, planned parenthood had taken a different route... they put the power, the choice into the hands of the women who were the bearers of the children, with really no respect to what group they might belong to...
and... bear in mind what planned parenthood originally set out to make available to all women were already available to those women who were financially capable to make a trip to europe where it wasn't illegal to pass along information and tools to help women control her own birth rate.

and, when you go back and look at history, we see all kinds of tactics that were used to control the population when those resources became scarce, from the concentration camps in germany and the us during the world war, to the work houses for the poor and orphans, to women drowning their own babies in the river because they just can't care for another, and of course the abortions that have, since the beginning of time, been with us...

you can find threads here on ats where some claim that the gov't should have the right to refuse parenthood on some people, because they are poor, because they are incapable of caring for them... it seems that at least to many, eugenics isn't as objectionable as giving women the ability to chose for themselves and giving them the ability to prevent pregnancy and I can't help but wonder why. as someone stated, when women are given a choice, it seems that the population is decreased which decreased the demand for the natural resources that are needed to sustain the population and society is more capable of providing kinder ways of caring for those families that are unable to care for themselves...

a reply to: dawnstar

Hi there, and I appreciate your thoughtful and thorough response.

I disagree, however, that this planet does not have enough to sustain the family sizes that we would choose for ourselves.

Think about it. George Soros is a billionare. He has almost three times as much money as there are human beings on this planet. HE (and other greedy ones like him who believe that life is theirs alone to experience) wants us to believe that we can't support our own families, that the resources on earth are limited to those rapacious enough to grab them first..

This is not about abortion per se.. this is about a disinformation campaign designed to cull the earth's population of the poor, the diseased, the "stupid" and the unelect.

Abortion is the least significant way (numbers wise- I will not touch the morality because I don't have the answer there) in which this is happening.

ETA: Mr Guttmacher has sired 3 children of his own, so for all his talking, his actions show that he is interested in a slight increase in his own population.

It's people like this that disgust me.. not the average "I support PP" or "I don't support PP" type.

a reply to: zosimov

wants us to believe that we can't support our own families, that the resources on earth are limited to those rapacious enough to grab them first..

ya know, the idea that there are greedy people who want to control the distribution of resources and have so much more than anyone else does not diminish the truth a the parent who says they cannot afford to feed, house, provide medical care, ect... their children, right???

the family sizes that we would choose for ourselves.

but, isn't that what planned parenthood has worked to give women the ability to do?
there will always be people who will find ways to gather more wealth, real estate, better food, ect at the expense of the masses..
and there will always be women who would prefer not to have children year after year throughout their child bearing years... regardless of weather they can afford those kids or not. and it didn't take a massive disinformation campaign to convince them that they didn't ... I think most women would prefer not to!!!

if you truly believe that we should be able to choose the family sizes that are right for us, I don't see how you can stand against the concepts that are behind planned parenthood!

Sanger was born Margaret Louise Higgins in 1879 in Corning, New York,[12] to Michael Hennessey Higgins, an Irish-born stonemason and free-thinker, and Anne Purcell Higgins, a Catholic Irish-American. Michael Hennessey Higgins had emigrated to the USA at age 14 and joined the U.S. Army as a drummer at age 15, during the Civil War. After leaving the army, Michael studied medicine and phrenology, but ultimately became a stonecutter, making stone angels, saints, and tombstones.[13] Michael H. Higgins was a Catholic who became an atheist and an activist for women's suffrage and free public education.[14] Anne was born in Ireland. Her parents brought the family to Canada during the Potato Famine. She married Michael in 1869.[15] Anne Higgins went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) in 22 years before dying at the age of 49. Sanger was the sixth of eleven surviving children,[16] and spent much of her youth assisting with household chores and caring for her younger siblings.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't care weather you are male or female, I am pretty sure you wouldn't want to go through, or watch your spouse go through, 18 pregnancies, raise up 11 kids, and lose 7 babies through miscarriage!! I was born pre-birth control pill, and many of my friends came from homes with 7 or more kids. more than likely their home's weren't the happy little "brady bunch" havens that many seem to picture to have been the norm!!

a reply to: dawnstar

I would like to stress again the crux of this thread, which is not about Planned Parenthood, but rather the ideology that some of its key early players may or may not have professed to, an ideology that (if you read the Dr Day link) seems to have already altered society.

Yes sex and birth control are a part of this ideology, but it is comprehensive and includes music, entertainment, art, food, alcohol and drugs, infrastructure, family structure, sports, constant change, etc (it is an interesting link). And in my opinion, there are many many avenues and ways to control conception that occur well before one would ever have to hit a Planned Parenthood clinic.. but that is not the point of this thread. Truly.

But no I would not want to force Anne Higgins to suffer 18 pregnancies, if that is your question.

a reply to: zosimov
while the ATS thread, as well as the speech that Dr. Day gave seem to have covered so much more than just planned parenthood, population control, birth control, ect...
you op seem to focus on it, trying to connect planned parenthood into this evil diabolical attempt to take control of humanity...

my point is that allowing women to control their own reproduction, as they see fit is a far cry from eugenics in that it gives we, the people, the control, not a bunch of think they know it all men who think only they know what is best for us, who while they are forcing most to get sterilized would probably also be forcing others to have babies. just in an attempt to keep the world in that perfect balance that only they see as necessary.



they might want population control, women though, want a place inside society that is beyond bearing and raising kids!

a reply to: dawnstar

I appreciate your point of view.

I do think (we) women have a place outside of bearing and raising kids, if we so wish. I am a living testament to that as a woman with a career and a child. I wanted to take time off my career to raise my kid and so I found a way to work from home. I am glad that women can choose to work (although with the financial contraints, it's hardly a choice for some) and don't see our society ever reverting to the time when women had no choice but stay home.

I also believe that there are many many options today for women and men who do not wish to conceive. Most people can't really claim ignorance these days-- there are resources everywhere for people to learn a bit about birth control!

Why do you believe it is either we control our own population or they will do it for us? I ascribe to a third option which is it is not up to them to decide! The power is in our own hands.

This OP focused on Planned Parenthood as this is the connection between Day and Guttmacher (as is the Mt Sinai School of Medicine) and mentioned eugenics as a response to Day's speech and Guttmacher's own involvement in the American Eugenics Society.

I profess to know little about the driving ideology behind Planned Parenthood today. Perhaps there is nothing more to this thread than an interesting look into the minds of several of PPs early leadership-- which is horrifying and fascinating in itself.

Thanks for the discussion, though.. and the link!

a reply to: zosimov

Why do you believe it is either we control our own population or they will do it for us? I ascribe to a third option which is it is not up to them to decide! The power is in our own hands.

because whenever people chose not to take the power they rightfully hold for themselves, there is always someone there eagerly waiting to take it from them? and that I believe that women, if given the freedom and ability to hold the power to control their reproduction themselves, will willingly and eagerly control their own birth rate effective enough that there would be no reason for anyone to intervene to reduce it, or at least they wouldn't be able to justify any action that would to the population without sounding like insane jerks. which is something that I do believe tends to be proven when a society's women is given that ability for themselves.

Margaret Sanger didn't just start planned parenthood, she also played an important role in the funding and developing of the birth control pill... that pill was approved in 1960, by 1962, 1.2 million women were using it, by 1965, 6.5 million women are using it... the vast majority of them did so willingly...

www.pbs.org...

meanwhile, on the eugenicist front...

“There is today one state, in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of citizenship] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”
Adolf Hitler

there were 32 states that had eugenic sterilization laws by 1932, over 25% of the native american women were sterilized between 1970 and 1976, and although the practice of forced sterilizations is pretty much unacceptable now, I think it is still reported from time to time.

www.pbs.org...

no choice was given to these women, they were either forced or were sterilized without their knowledge.
virginia was the last state to repeal the eugenics laws in 1979.

I just don't like it when I see planned parenthood being portrayed as a eugenics tool, there is a pretty big difference between a women holding her destiny in her own hands and the gov't and it's lawmakes, doctors, and other "professionals" thinking that they know best and taking the decision making from her.

Hey, well thank you again for taking the time out to make some very good points.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: zosimov

I just don't like it when I see planned parenthood being portrayed as a eugenics tool, there is a pretty big difference between a women holding her destiny in her own hands and the gov't and it's lawmakes, doctors, and other "professionals" thinking that they know best and taking the decision making from her.

Yes, and I understand that there is very little to like about this idea. Tool or not, at least two principal players in Planned Parenthood espoused ideas akin or identital to eugenics! Which is all that I pointed out with this thread.
Perhaps those beliefs have gone the way of the forced sterilization laws, or perhaps it is simply a coincidence that those two men held those positions in Planned Parenthood and also happened to hold extreme views about population control and eugenics, but I still consider it worth looking into or knowing about. I did little more than present the information here and leave it up to anyone interested in doing so to look deeper.

I'm sure that if I am mistaken in my assumptions as you believe, people will draw their own like conclusions.

You have some excellent points about reproductive rights and the gross violations that governments have acted upon its citizens in the past, and now our govt is more subtle and sinister in its tactics.

I really have no stake in the PP game I am only presenting interesting information that I found in case others found it so as well. I am just as interested in Mt Sinai and Icahn as PP.. if not more so.