There is an interesting fight between Planned Parenthood and its former director in Bryan, Texas. (Yes, it appears the same town where the Virgin Mary was recently discovered in bird droppings, here). Abby Johnson worked for Planned Parenthood for eight years, but decided to leave after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure. This has led to the filing of a restraining order against her by her former employer after she joined forces with the Coalition For Life.
Abortion opponents have often litigated and legislated to try to force prospective mothers to watch ultrasound images before having an abortion. This case is likely to reinforce such efforts.
Johnson stated that, after seeing the images, she decided to quit: “I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it.” She resigned on Oct. 6th.
She has claimed that the organization has changed its policies in the bad economy to push for abortions.
Last Friday, she and the Coalition for Life were hit with temporary restraining orders filed by Planned Parenthood, which seeks to prevent her from disclosing information about the organization.
Rochelle Tafolla, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson stated “We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary.”
The parties are expected to square off in court on November 10th.
For the full story, click here
Buddha,
Coming soon to a theater near you…
http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/11/03/vincent-bugliosi-bush-guilty-of-murder/
Thanks, Buddah. I think I’ll pass on synsumthn’s eugenics hysteria.
Mike,
Thank you, kind sir. One lives to be of service.
Buddha,
Great lesson on the nuances of propaganda. Saynsumthn’s post needed dissecting because it was subtle in technique. This makes me wonder where Jake has gone to, he displayed similar subtlety. We are being visited by smarter types of trolls these days.
Childrens,
Today’s lesson on propaganda is “value loaded words”.
When preparing propaganda, word choice is critical. Not just for grammatic and style purposes but for the intrinsic socially determined “value load”. This value load can be of varied content.
An example of a word that is value load with good connotation is “home style”. It conjures images of comfort. That’s why it’s on every factory manufactured package of semi-food in your local grocery. Madison Ave. loves value loaded words.
An example of a word that has a negative value load is “torture”. It’s synonymous in the minds of ethical and moral people with evil. Perhaps even evil with a capital “E”. This is why NPR refuses to use the word torture and instead use the government and corporate sponsor approved euphemism “enhanced interrogation”. After all, when you’re pimpin’ for “The Man”, you have to spin him up good, yah!
A practical real time example of using a word with negative value load presents itself saynsumthn’s post. Planned Parenthood advocates counsel birth control, help manage women though first time pregnancies, help with connection to adoption services if needed, and – yes – help with connection to abortion services. In other words, they provide a full-spectrum counseling service for pregnant women. This is an intrinsically positive social function unless you just like high infant mortality and high rates of abandonment. Yet in a link to a site that claims to be “historical”, this poster describes Planned Parenthood as having “eugenic ideals”. Well the last organization that trumpeted eugenic ideals to take center stage was the Nazis so I think the value load of this wording is self-evident in a historical context. I would also point to the verb choice “will walk you though”, not convince you, but walk you through – just like an infomercial. Not convince you on merit. Sell you.
I leave it to you, dear reader, to decide if the “fully documented” film is worth your viewing time.
For more on Planned Parenthood- get a copy of the film: Maafa21. Riveting and historical – this fully documented film will walk you through the eugenic ideals that formed that organization. Short view here: http://www.maafa21.com
“Ahh, there’s the rub. You feel that anyone that opposes abortion is automatically in line with any anti-abortion policy.”
Jake,
that you choose to misinterpret me does not an argument make. I feel that anyone who opposes abortion lines up with some loathsome people who have done much harm to this country and to its’ Constitution. It is immaterial to me if your purport to have greater insight and compassion into the issue if your solution comes out the same as the misogynists who dare to think they are “pro-life.”
“Further, a mother incapable of or unwilling to raise a child is certainly not good for anybody. If a mother does not want children, forcing children on her is cruel to both her and the child. I wonder if this requires abortion, though.”
If she doesn’t want to go through the nine months of pregnancy then to me it requires an abortion. It is her choice and you have no logical reason for this not being so except a morality, that my own religious faith doesn’t hold to.
“To me, choice begins with conception. Sure, sex is a right. But it’s also a choice.”
There is no statistical evidence that people use abortion as birth control. What normally occurs is young people, lacking birth control knowledge blocked by the anti-choice crowd, failure to protect themselves. Since I don’t believe abortion is immoral, then I believe that people can rectify their mistakes.
“With that being said, I think we have a duty to provide a good home for all children, if possible.”
I worked in child care for years and also worked for an agency that provided foster care and adoptions. The unwanted children, with destroyed lives are legion. The people you side with don’t believe that funds should be available to take good care of these kids.
“The adoption solution, however, will likely resolve the vast majority of unwanted births.”
No it won’t if women are made to carry an unwanted child to term. It’s rather cavalier of you to want to demand that of them.
“Just because you state a conclusion doesn’t make it true. You see how those arguing life can claim the exact same thing as you do and it contributes nothing to the dialogue?”
No actually I believe my conclusion is correct and I have already made the point that your side can make the same claim in refuting one of your propositions. You are assuming that I want to have a dialogue with you. That’s not necessarily so. I have at least responded to most of your points, while you have avoided most of mine, such as your false apology.
“Leave this to Mike, who is just as offensive, but at least ready to think.”
Please show me Jake where I have been offensive? I haven’t been, it is you who have done the name calling. As Buddha said you are marginally more clever than your compadres, but the underlying thrust is just as easy to discern. What distinguishes you is that you won’t even come out and state your beliefs honestly, but pretend to be engaging in dialogue.
I always miss the good brawls.
Jake,
To be upset, one must value the others position for their opine to cause harm. Disdain, yes. Upset, not even. As I am four-square against pro-lifers, upset doesn’t enter into it. For the record, that you haven’t mentioned a specific religious affiliation is irrelevant other then it shows you’re slightly smarter than the usual Bible-verse hurling pro-lifers who usually meet a hasty end.
The simple fact of it is there are no pro-life sectarians who endorse banning abortions. They may encourage adoption, but they won’t be telling others how to live their lives like a person arguing ex deus. Why? Because they are not blinded by dogma, dogma which historically is aimed at keeping women down as it’s a threat to the male dominated church hierarchy (no matter the church).
As to position, there is no flaw in mine, Mike’s or Gyges’ logic or the analysis of your misuse of language. The logic is simple. If you don’t agree with with an action? Then don’t do it, but your right to tell others how to live their lives and care for their health ends at your lips. You don’t like me or others that post here for personal reasons or you want to make it personal? I couldn’t care less unless I was a twin. You want to disprove what you are being accused of doing, e.g. being a pro-life propagandist with an agenda? Then do so with logic and persuasive speech. Otherwise, you are just joining the long line of discredited trolls who have taken the Pro-Life stance and run with it.
But upset has nothing to do with it.
And for the record, that flag the Prof just threw down is for your protection, not mine. When it comes to just being insulting and mean? You are way way out of your depth, sport. I give far better than I get. There is no regular poster or reader who would disagree with the proposition that I am the probably the worst person here you could possibly want to take the flame war tack with so steer it back to the underlying (il)logic of your statements, jake.
If you find that offensive and can’t make your case? Too bad. If you dislike that you tell as much by what you don’t say as by what you do say? Learn to argue better. You think I’m a bigot? Prove it. I have literally thousands of posts here that prove otherwise. You think I’m a hack? Awwww. Dat hurtz myz wittle feelin’s. Nah! Who am I kidding! I don’t give a damn what you think about me. Really. But that you would think that I do is just hysterical.
A lack of logic on your part that causes you embarrassment does not constitute an emergency or even concern on my part. Amusement maybe. It’s funny watching you twist in the wind, sure, but it’s not going to make me loose any sleep. So stick to the logics, sport. You calling me names is only a recipe for disaster for you and hilarity for me so please, prove that the speculative rights of an unborn piece of meat trump the actual rights of a living woman. WITH LOGIC. You can’t do it, but I am sure willing to laugh at watching you try.
Buddha, you seem pretty upset. I would calm down before you get yourself confused.
You concluded that choice is a choice, that you can choose where choice is and let everybody be alone. That does not bring a resolution to a sincere debate on the topic. Your logic suggests that I can choose what life is. Suppose I don’t agree that toddlers are human? Can I pull out a shotgun on any toddler that makes noise? This obviously is not something that can be left to your foolish observations.
Who says I’m religious? What’s to say that I feel life begins in the womb because God says so? Is it impossible that I feel that way because I’ve seen my own daughter in the womb? You’re a biggot and a hack, clearly unversed in your “logic.” Leave this to Mike, who is just as offensive, but at least ready to think.
I have to throw a flag down on this thread. Everyone has vented but this is turning personal on both sides, which is a shame because there seems some interesting thoughts shared in this thread. Please focus on the ideas and not the individuals. Even the Al Qaeda Magazine insists on “civil jihadis” in its comments section.