It has been suggested elsewhere on this site that Planned Parenthood is a "pro-abortion" organization. It has been insinuated, if not outright said, that they seek to provide abortions solely for profit in a related attempt to promote their goals of reducing the world population.

I disagree with this, but I have been informed that I can't see the bias because I am looking at the issue with a personal "pro-abortion" bias. So I am inviting anyone and everyone to contribute to this debate, so as to curb any possible bias I or anyone else might possess.

It is true that Planned Parenthood discusses abortion with patients, and some Planned Parenthood facilities even provide abortion procedures. It has been stated by another member that 98% of those women who spoke with Planned Parenthood about abortion proceeded to have an abortion. Like most organizations which offer medical procedures, Planned Parenthood charges for abortion just as they charge for pap smears, contraception, etc. And, whether it is the intent of Planned Parenthood or not, abortions do indeed result in a lower world population.

Now, from my personal experience with Planned Parenthood and from reading their website, it appears to me that they operate very objectively. To my knowledge, they do not seek to persuade or dissuade a woman from their choice in regards to pregnancy. Those seeking information about abortion are provided only with information about abortion, without any appeals to emotion or scare tactics. Those seeking information about adoption are provided only with information about adoption, without any appeals to emotion or scare tactics.

So, if ten women go to Planned Parenthood seeking information about abortion and receive information only about abortion, and nine of them decide to have the procedure, where is the problem? They went for information and received only the information they asked for. As I said before, Planned Parenthood does not seek to persuade or dissuade a woman to do anything.

Conversely, if ten women go seeking information about adoption and receive information only about adoption, and nine of them decide to carry to term and use adoption agencies, where is the problem? Like those women receiving information about abortion, they are only provided the information that they sought. There is no attempt to persuade these women to have an abortion just as there is no attempt to persuade those seeking abortion to consider adoption.

Since when is it bias to provide only the information sought by a patient without any elaboration about other options, appeals to emotion or scare tactics? It seems to me that Planned Parenthood is taking a neutral stance in favor of individual choice when they deal with pregnancy in an objective manner. They meet with and assist women of all ages, race and creed. They meet with and assist them regardless of whether they are considering abortion, adoption, or first time parenting.

I don't know, maybe my bias is preventing me from seeing the bias of Planned Parenthood by opening their doors to women of different beliefs and choices.

Now, in regards to Planned Parenthood and their position on reduced population, their support of abortion does not appear to be in anyway connected to some extensive plan to actively reduce the population. As a matter of fact, Planned Parenthood is also a staunch opponent of forced abortions. Surely an organization seeking to reduce population by means of abortion wouldn't oppose forced abortions, right?

From what I can discern, Planned Parenthood's position on population control is related to their advocacy of sex education and the improved use of contraception. The perception that they seek to reduce it by way of abortion seems to be contradicted by their willingness to support adoption and parenting, not to mention the opposition to forced abortion. Maybe it's just me and my bias again.

Is Planned Parenthood bias in favor of abortion? Or are they merely dealing with each pregnancy option in an objective manner, assisting women in pursuing their personal decisions?

I don't see it... unless of course being open to all the options presented to women is somehow bias now.

Links from the alleged "pro-abortion" organization:
Adoption: An Act of Love
The Whole Truth About Adoption
What If I'm Pregnant?

Included in the last of of these links, Planned Parenthood addresses both the issue of adoption and abortion as such:

International News: United Nations Population Fund

From this press release regarding population, the administration's international "gag rule" and forced abortion:

And of course, in their pursuit to reduce the world population, they have been malicious enough to assist couples in family planning:
Planning for Pregnancy
International Family Planning Makes a World of Difference

And they would never dream of helping couples struggling to conceive due to fertility problems would they? After all, they're working to reduce the world population... aren't they?
Infertility

You make a lot of good points, and little can be added. It seems to me that any organization which is not anti-abortion is going to be preceived as "pro-abortion" simply because this is an issue which causes tremendous emotional feelings on both sides; it's hard to accept a neutral position. Of course, there are few people who are truly "pro-abortion." Few would consider the act of abortion a positive good, and nearly all would wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The latter is clearly the primary goal of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood does much more good in Third World countries, something often neglected here when thinking of our own concerns, abortion or anti-abortion. PP does NOT make money from abortions, wrongly stated by Hugo in another thread.

PP does provide education, contraception, STD testing and true family planning to India, Africa, Asia, South America and Mexico, where overpopulation and disease are rampant. I think we often forget that our society is/are not the only ones affected by our policies and our 'ideals' are not applicable to all nations. Bush, by cutting International PP funding as the very first thing he did after being sworn into office may have appeased he religious right here in the States, but did untold damage to peoples in the countries that really needed it, and ourselves, lest we forget that the impoverished and overpopulated will become increasingly a burden.

Planned ParentHood is a good organization to make Teens aware of the consequences of their actions. It is like an eye opener to reality because of it. They tell you the consequences of unprotected sex and what parenting as a teen could do to you.

How many abortion clinics does Planned Parenthood run? How many adoption agencies? Why is it all the questions posed to someone with an unwanted pregnancy have my, I, or mine in it? Why is it the zygote or fetus is never referred to in these questions? Is it a mere coincidence those who go to Planned Parenthood, with unintended pregnancies, abort at 80 times the rate that they have their child adopted?

Christian "counselors" will promote the horrors of abortion and emphasize the fetus. Planned Parenthood "counselors" will emphasize the burdens and economic costs and de-emphasize, or ignore completely, the fetus. Both Christian and PP "counselors" are highly biased. At least the Christian counselors are honest enough to admit it.

Notice on Ab's post the argument that PP makes that emotional problems are more likely to occur after delivery than after an abortion. They state this as a fact. No mention of conflicting studies that assert the opposite. From this link.

Now, a new study published in the latest issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) shows that such evidence does exist. A review of the medical records of 56,741 California medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 2.6 times more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortion or delivery.

Depressive psychosis was the most common diagnosis. Rates of psychiatric treatment remained significantly higher for at least four years. A previously published study by the same authors revealed that women who had abortions were also more likely to require subsequent outpatient mental health care.


Given the results of this study, should PP be advertising this:



Seems like a pro-abortion opinion, not an undisputed fact.

Perhaps all the questions ask about the individual seeking information because that is the individual making the decision. When a zygote, embryo or fetus can make the decision for the woman, perhaps then they will ask it. Until then the decision rests and remains with the woman.

Do you have something to support that women going to Planned Parenthood abort at 80 times the rate they turn to adoption? And please remember, they give only the information women seek. So if 80 times more women going to Planned Parenthood are asking only about abortion, that's all Planned Parenthood is talking to them about. As I have said, they are not there to persuade or dissuade any of the women.


Christian "counselors" only have to take a two week exam to qualify as counselors as well. They argue from a religiously bias point of view, attempting to portray the act of abortion as a sin and as murder. What you portray as bias in Planned Parenthood is objectivity with a focus on the woman rather than what may or may not develop into an individual member of society. They focus only on the woman regardless of whether they are seeking help with abortion, adoption or parenting.


I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider ninety days long-term.
religioustolerance.com was the first site which popped up in my search between post-partum depression and post-abortion syndrome. According to them, the American Psychological Association acknowledges the existence of post-abortion syndrome, but declare it is a rare phenomenon. They have testified before a committee of the United States House of Representatives that it occurs significantly less than post-partum depression after a birth.

There are other statistics mentioned which support the position Planned Parenthood expresses on their website.

The religioustolerance.com site is also endorsed by Harvard's Global Reproduction Health Forum.

From the American Psychological Association:

More information can be found:
Pro-Choice Forum
APA Division 35 - Society for the Psychology of Women

Perhaps Planned Parenthood and other organizations will take into account the Elliot Institute's report if and when it is corroborated by other research. Having just been released in May, I doubt if they or any other organization has had the time to reproduce the results with similar studies.

Based on the time tested information, and the recent study by a single institute examining only low-income women, I see no reason for Planned Parenthood to alter their method of disseminating information to the public.

I am not arguing that the decision does not rest with the woman. I have always stated abortion should be legal, even though it is the epitome of selfishness.

The fact that a woman makes the decision does not mean that she cannot consider the fetus. Of course any reference to the fetus in the questions would almost certainly make choosing an abortion less likely. Thus hurting PP financially and also interfering with their low population growth goals.

I have already documented the 80 to 1 abortion to adoption ratio on the thread preceding this one.

PP asserts that abortion causes less emotional problems than childbirth. Considering the conflicting studies they should leave that assertion out.

You keep asserting they only give the information women seek. Can you back this up?

I have not even brought up the abortion/breast cancer link controversy. Of course no abortion provider would dare mention there are conflicting studies in that area also.

The problem for young woman seeking an abortion is that the issue is so politicized that you cannot find unbiased counseling or unbiased studies on health consequences resulting from abortion.

To focus, as you state, only on the woman is a pro-abortion bias. As much as pro-abortionists wish to dehumanize the fetus the fact is the counseling done and the incidences of emotional disturbances show that many of those who choose abortion still realize it was a developing human being inside of them. The fact the fetus has no part in the decision does not mean it can be ignored without imparting a pro-abortion bias.

The questions concentrate on the individual because choosing life does require unselfishness and sacrifice. Choosing an abortion does not.

What If I'm Pregnant?
Can an embryo or fetus feel pain?

Where can I get an abortion?

They mention both the embryo and the fetus when discussion the procedures of abortion. They don't simply call them "it" or a random cluster of cells. Every Planned Parenthood in my state only does referrals to other clinics as well, thereby not receiving a profit from patients who choose abortion.

They also provide access to specific information regarding pregnancy, including information about embryonic and fetal development:
External Links: Perinatal/Childbirth/Adoption

In regards to this claim about reducing the population again, they seem to continue shooting themselves in the foot by helping those who would rather adopt or raise children themselves:
Planned Parenthood and Prenatal Care
How to Have a Healthy Baby
Planned Parenthood and Adoption Arrangements
What About Adoption?


According to you, 98% of those women seeking information and couseling on abortion proceeded to have an abortion. This isn't that surprising as they do not attempt to talk anybody out of a decision. They are there to provide information and present questions for the woman to consider before proceeding. Women seeking counsel on abortion are already leaning in that direction; without any attempts to persuade them otherwise, it's expected that the vast majority will have the procedure.


You have presented one study that is only four months old, Hugo. The scientific community generally likes to do extensive research relying on a bevy of information rather than a single report targeting low-income women. In relation, separate studies have noted that those aborting for financial reasons rather than personal are more at risk, leaving more to be studied beyond what the Elliot Institute presented.

I might also note here that Planned Parenthood seeks to improve sex education and the availability of condoms so that people of all incomes won't be forced to deal with the decisions accompanying unwanted pregnancy.


They don't ignore the embryo or fetus, nor do they attempt to persuade any woman to choose an abortion. They assist women regardless of whether they are seeking prenatal assistance, adoption or abortion. You have provided a single report that is only four months old focusing on a low-income group with other burdens which could easily factor in to their decision to abort and ensuing regret.

It seems to me that any organization with a favorable or accepting approach to abortion is going to be labeled as "pro-abortion" and biased by you, Hugo. They support abortion and the right of women to choose it. They do not force it on any woman, nor do they attempt to persuade any women of any age or race to make the decision. They assist them regardless of how they wish to handle a pregnancy whether it is expected or unexpected.

Their support of women choosing to abort has nothing to do with their position on reduced global population. Their stance on global population is linked only to their pursuit of better sex education and improved use of contraceptives. Were they interested in pursuing a reduced population they would only hurt their cause by assisting women in prenatal care and adoption options. Either they are contradicting their nefarious "pro-abortion" plans to reduce the population, or you are creating a link that isn't there. I view it to be the latter.

First off, if Planned Parenthood runs any "abortion clinics," it's very few. "Abortion clinic" is this blanket term that pro-lifers have come up with to encompass any building other than a hospital that performs abortions. If I'm correct, most "abortion clinics" are really women's health centers/gynecologists, and the majority of work they do is not abortions but other women's health issues.

Second off, I don't think Planned Parenthood runs any adoption agencies, but instead runs it through the government or an existing agency. Then again, they don't always run the "abortion clinics" either. I worked as a social workers for both the state and Planned Parenthood back after I just got out of college, and although I really wasn't involved in abortion/adoption counseling that much, I knew that when a woman did decide to have an abortion we didn't just take her in the back room, we would send them to various different places, some of them affiliated with Planned Parenthood, some of them not. I can't remember where we sent women who decided to opt for adoption.




It's not. Here's a link to their website's FAQ. They do talk about the fetus. They don't harp on it and show disgusting videos of jars with babies in them, but they talk about it.




I'm sorry, that's just flat out wrong. Planned Parenthood does not pressure anyone into having an abortion. In fact, if a woman is getting counseling from Planned Parenthood, at least when I was there, the counselor will always stress both sides of the argument, and if the counselor feels that someone close to the woman (such as a boyfriend or parent) is putting too much pressure either for or against abortion, the counselor is both expected and required to encourage her to make her own decision based on the facts and her own beliefs.

Planned Parenthood is a counseling agency. That's what they do.




Where are you getting this? Planned Parenthood counselors and employees hold a huge range of beliefs about abortion. When I worked there quite a few people were pro-life, or at the very least moderate like myself. In fact, many branches of Planned Parenthood refuse to perform abortions after the first trimester, and many refuse to after the second.

It should also be noted that Planned Parenthood does a huge amont of work preventing abortions. If they're really such evil people that love sucking babies out of women, then why do they put such emphasis on contraception and sex education?

Please stop making blanket statements like that.

What?

When a Planned Parenthood spokesperson came to my health class (which I was forced to take), she said one thing about abortion "abortion is an option for an unwanted pregnancy."

What Planned Parenthood is biased in favor of is birth control. In fact, the entire week-long class lecture wasn't about abortion, it was about birth control.

"Prevent unwanted pregnancies" That is the line that was repeated over and over again.

I wouldn't say that Planned parenthood was into abortions as a quick fix. If they're into anything, it's birth control.

I hardly think that abortion is preventative. That's like shooting a burglar that is stealing from your home in order to prevent him from breaking in. What's done is done.


As for this thread I have little to say except that when my now ex-girlfriend worked for an anti-abortion hotline, numerous threats were made to her and her fellow employees. When investigated the police found out the phone calls were made by employees of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood also attempted to file law suits in California against a Christian organization I volunteered with because we sold these license plate frames that said "CHOOSE LIFE". The grounds they were trying to file on were that it took away from a womans' right to choose.
As long as I have known about PP, They have been a thorn in the side of Christian Pro-life Activists. Not for the work they do at the centers, but for what they do outside the centers.

I can't tell if you just didn't read either my post or BH's, or if you're just being asinine. It has been made very clear that Planned Parenthood is very pro-contraception for the purpose of preventing pregancy. That's just what Planned Parenthood does.

The rest of your post doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, so I'll skip it.

Uhhh, no one is suggesting that abortion is preventative. Birth control, however, is preventative; as I said in my post.

Planned Parenthood is known primarily for birth control. We have both a Planned Parenthood in my area and an abortion clinic, they are entirely separate. I have a friend who worked at the abortion clinic for awhile, something I'm not sure I could do without a guilty conscience. She said it was an interesting experience. She told me a story about how she was checking a fetus (to make sure that they had got everything) that had an usual blood clot type defect on its leg and how a staff memeber who had been there some time was able to tell her what drug or combination of drugs the mother had done to produce such a problem.

I did a bit of research and found that many Planned Parenthood clinics use referrals for abortion procedures but that others do indeed offer the procedure. University Health Center (Women's Clinic) at Maryland offers pretty much the same things as Planned Parenthood except that it does NOT offer the abortion procedures. Both the Health Center and Planned Parenthood offer birthcontol, gynecology exams, pamphlets and talks on the different pregnancy prevention methods, and the morning after pill.

I found this out by looking at the link for my area:
Maryland Planned Parenthood Clinics
and other areas:
US Map of Clinics

In addition here are some "fact sheets" dealing with abortion that I found on the Planned Parenthood website:
planned parenthood fact sheets

Hugo,
You mentioned controversy concerning a link between breast cancer and abortion .
The latest information declares that they have found no such link.
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications...r07-31-03-2.cfm

The reasons are numerous why one would chose an abortion over carrying a baby to full term to give for adoption.

While you say claim that the numbers are due to the bias of Planned Parenthood councelors, you forget that the facts themselves are the biggest promoters for abortion vs other alternatives.

Eighty percent of females who become mothers before the age of 18 don't finish high school and 40% of females who give birth by age 15 don't complete 8th grade. Data here

Let's assume that most of the patients at Planned Parenthood in America are young mothers.
One of the reasons young mothers don't want to keep the child is because society will isolate her while pregnant. What is more important to young teenage girls than 'fitting in' with the crowd? What is more horrifying than the prospect of being cast out of the popular, 'in' crowd? Most girls will not be allowed to continue with their lives in school while pregnant - they will be switched to special programs, away from their friends (who the young mother needs most at times like this). Most teenage girls find this a HUGE deterent for carrying a child to full term. Not to mention the fact that they possibly would get placed into an inferior educational program with these "teen mother" programs. These concepts alone provides a thouroughly plausible explanation for the statistics you provide (why they opt for abortion more than adoption), reason having nothing to do with the bias or unbias of any counselors.

These are not good reasons to take a life but rather good reasons not to have sex in the first place. We need to be proactive and teach that sex is reserved for marriage only and that life is sacred and should not be terminated because someone else made a mistake. If you make a mistake, you take responsibility for the consequences. Our culture promotes sex out of wedlock in the name of being happy and having fun without regard for the consequences. Abortion is not the answer and only promotes attempting to correct a wrong with another wrong. My Momma and Daddy taught me 'two wrongs don't make a right' and I am a firm believer in that principle even though it seems old fashioned. It is for violation of this principle, among many others, that situations with organizations such as Enron, Worldcom and Healthsouth occur...but that is yet another subject. Abortion only allows the wrong to continue and eliminate the natural consequences. I hate bringing unwanted children into the world but adoption is a viable option and that alternative needs to be promoted with great enthusiasm if you are truly an advocate of the family.

I went to Planned Parenthood with my first pregnancy. I was young, poor and in need of help. I did not want to be judged and I knew that this was a place that many many women in my exact situation had seeked assistence. The clinic I went to had you first fill out a form alone, on that form they ask if you are in fact pregnant do you want to keep the baby or are you seeking alternatives. I checked the "keep my baby" box and from there on they helped me find a doctor etc.
No one mentioned abortion and if you read my info on paper I was without a doubt a prime candidate for one.

I just want to ask those who claim the giving the baby up to adoption...why do you feel as if this is an alternate yet equivalent option to abortion? Who is going to care for the mother while she is pregnant? Who will pay for her medical expenses? And all for what? Who wants to adopt a black baby? Or a hispanic one? What babies are most desired by those who can afford the costs of such an adoption?



No offense to you but this perspective in my opinion is way off. To many teenage mothers being a mother is not all that abnormal and American society is a lot more accepting of it these days. I remember when I was in High School and I remember the girl friends of mine who became pregnant and I remember that for many of them this was in fact a "goal" they attained. For many of them the lack of love and feeling special was so vacant from their family lives at home that they felt the need to create their own happy loving family.
These girls have baby showers, have special schools to go to with many others just like them and are given assistance from numerous govt. programs. Not to mention for some of the girls they are just carrying out the family tradition and for them to be pregnant at such a young age is far from an outcast but instead being part of the norm of what they have always seen around them.

Marriage is not the cure all and it certainly does not guarantee a relationship free from abuses, poverty, or unwanted pregnancy. The same women who desire to space thier children, obtain an education, and have the number of children they feel they can afford and care for still exist if married.

Adoption, it can be a great thing. But why do we have children waiting to be adopted? What's wrong with them? Why can't they be first adopted to show how great the adoption system can really be if society cares so much?

I believe adoption is an important point, because it seems to be a bone of contention here. The pro-life side maintains that the lists for adoption are long and people wait years to get a baby. The other side maintains that there are thousands of children unwanted and waiting for adoption. Both are right.

Adoption is far from a panacea to the problem of unwanted children. The lines for adoption are long because it is very difficult for a woman to give up the child she brought into the world. In most cases, the healthy baby is instinctively wanted when it's lying there, sleeping sweetly, and relatively cheap and easy to care for. Women who sign up to adopt their babies off very often change their minds once these babies are born. That woman is likely to find herself in a situation where she cannot afford to care for the child later, when it becomes more expensive, less convenient, and less cute and cuddly.

Everyone wants the healthy new (especially caucasian) baby, and not many want the 2+ year old, minority, or sickly baby.

Reagarding Planned parenthood, I can't give much of an informed opinion. My only experience with them was a pregnancy test (negative, :thank God emoticon:) when I was in college. They didn't offer me any abortion literature preemptively though.

My experience with Planned Parenthood was for birth control. I never had any experience where PP forced any literature on me regarding pro-abortion.

They are about as neutral as any organization I've been involved with, but I have noticed a tendancy for emotionally charged topics like this to get a strong label if a person or group is very biased one way or another. To someone who is very anit-abortion, the fact that PP won't refuse to assist someone in obtaining one if they choose, suddenly makes PP pro-abortion. This kind of polarization labeling is illogical and misleading.

Planned Parenthood - Abortion

Planned Parenthood has never been known for being upright about their true goals.

From this site

Planned Parenthood’s founder and matriarch, Margaret Sanger in the 1930s ingeniously promoted her ideology that the "unfit" should be prevented from reproducing, "by force if necessary." Since the economic plight of many Blacks placed them and their families in the position of living in an environment that Sanger believed breed "unfit" individuals, her organization zeroed in on the "Negro" population. Establishing the "Negro Project," Sanger and her cohorts set out to push their birth control agenda which as she writes "is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives" (The Pivot of Civilization written by M. Sanger)

In November 1939 a "Negro Project" leader feared that the project would be in "a great danger" of failing because "the Negroes think it a plan for extermination." Therefore, "let’s appear to let the colored run it ...." (Gamble memo "Suggestions for Negro Project" excerpted from pamphlet issued by the African American Committee, A.L.L.) Sanger later wrote him back saying, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population ..." She goes on saying that use of the Negro minister would effectively "straighten ... any rebellious members." (Letter from Sanger to Gamble, excerpted from pamphlet issued by the African American Committee, A.L.L.) "With social service backgrounds, and engaging personalities" the "hired ... Colored Ministers" would "propagandized for birth control ... "through a religious appeal." To help maintain control, the colored ministerial staff would be carefully controlled. "A project director lamented ‘I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with ... a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under White supervision’." Through her Negro Advisory Council, Sanger’s dream of discouraging "the defective and diseased elements of humanity" from their "reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning" has been successful. (Excerpts from Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood) (end of quote)

No, I do not believe that genocide is any longer on PP's agenda. Nor did I post this simply to inflame. The purpose is to show that Planned Parenthood has a history of hiding their true agenda. Their true agenda now is reducing population growth. Adoption does not limit population.

Regardless of what MAY have come out of the past ( I've not had time to double check on the reference cited above) it is what is happening now that is important. Planned parenthood does a lot of important work here and around the world, mostly in the area of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. This has led to better financial situations and health for women.

The beauty of choice, which is what Planned Parenthood is about now, is that it's about choice. I have 2 children who were "accidents" and I was not married to either of the fathers. It was a difficult decision to make, and in the end I chose both times to raise the child myself rather than have an abortion or give them up for adoption. But I can see many circumstances where those other two options could be necessary.

I'm grateful for organizations like Planned Parenthood that offer those choices to women who have to make difficult decisions. I'm glad they also do the important work of educating people on the the best ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I'm glad they give information on all the options. They are an important service, and I believe a neutral one, given that they assist with *all* options, not just the ideological ones.

Having just found this today, I've only had time to skim through the majority of it. From what I've found, I would dispute allegations that Planned Parenthood is now, or ever has been, interested in any type of genocide, racial or class warfare, or bias in favor of abortion as a means for birth control/population control.

Margaret Sanger's Pivot of Civilization
This doesn't appear to be any manifesto for genocide at the time it was written or now. The birth control addressed by Sanger is not limited to abortion and she clearly demonstrates throughout an interest in protecting children, ensuring that they are not born to bear the "burden of economic and industrial warfare."

Chapter IV seems to be where Sanger addresses issues relating to the "unfit" of society:
She concludes the chapter with three choices for addressing the issue, and later ends the entire work with a final note on eugenics and the prospect of forced sterilization:
While I personally disagree with her on this matter, it is her chapter dealing with this issue which appears to have been used to convey the idea that she was addressing blacks when addressing "unfit" individuals. Again, I have only skimmed the work as it is listed elsewhere to be some 300 pages long, but I'm not seeing any bias within this work towards any particular race. From what I have managed to read thus far it would appear that Sanger is pushing birth control and education as a means of helping those underpriveleged persons who would continue to express themselves sexually without the intent of conceiving.

An article I found relating to Sanger's "Negro Project" seems unbias and seems also to dispel the idea that she was attempting to exterminate blacks or viewed them as a defective or diseased element of humanity, as the site linked by Hugo might lead one to believe. Included in the article are some more complete quotes by Margaret Sanger, rather than choice excerpts:
Her letter to Clarence Gamble in 1939 which read in part:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Appears not to be some conspiracy --as might have previously come across in Hugo's link-- but Sanger's genuine concern that a true movement to assist those in the black community might be taken the wrong way.

From skimming Sanger's philosophy in Pivot of Civilization to considering her support from leaders in the black community regarding birth control, I see nothing to suggest an interest in genocide or a bias in favor of abortion. Throughout Sanger appears to have been interested in preventing unwanted pregnancy from the very start with conventional contraceptives of the time and the pursuit of cheaper means for those who were the least fortunate in society.

To be honest it is fairly easy to read between the lines and see the eugenics program Sanger proposed in Abs post but let me supply some more evidence.

From "A White Lie" Micheal Flaherty, American Spectator, August 1992



No it was not just negros that eugenics attacked. Just all non-aryan people. Which I believe includes most negros.

In Pivot of Civilization you find eugenics attacked, not for it's inherent racism, but for proposing the wrong solution. Sanger holds the solution to reducing the proportion of the "unfit" is birth control, not more children for the "fit".

From " Pivot of Civilization:

A distinguished American opponent of Birth Control some years ago
> spoke of the ``racial'' value of this high infant mortality rate among
> the ``unfit.'' He forgot, however, that the survival-rate of the
> children born of these overworked and fatigued mothers may
> nevertheless be large enough, aided and abetted by philanthropies and
> charities, to form the greater part of the population of to-morrow. As
> Dr. Karl Pearson has stated: ``Degenerate stocks under present social
> conditions are not short-lived; they live to have more than the normal
> size of family.'' (end of quote)

When you speak of degenerate stocks, when you support the rational, but not the solutions, of eugenics, it is quite possible people will suspect you are attempting genocide with your "Negro Project". No, it does not say in "Pivot of Civilization" that we wish to wipe out the negro. Margaret was a better politician than that.

And who were the unfit? From this site.

Whereas in the first half of the nineteenth century sexist and racist ideology was encapsulated in the idealistic philosophical discourse on the dualism of `nature' and `culture', in the second half of the century it acquired a materialistic `scientific' foundation. In this process Darwin's theory of evolution played a decisive role, particularly in the form of Social Darwinism developed by Spencer, which posited that `survival of the fittest' was the selective mechanism by which `superior' societies evolved from lower ones. The backwardness of the peoples in the colonies was now attributed to their being on a lower stage in the evolutionary process. At the pinnacle were the Anglo-Saxons or the Nordic race.
Such ideas gave rise to the eugenic movement started by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, who coined the term `eugenics' in 1883. Galton combined the ideas of Darwin with those of Malthus and advocated `selective breeding' in order to prevent the deterioration of the race. The `fit' were to be encouraged to breed more and the `unfit' to breed less. Fitness and unfitness, however, were defined by the values of the English middle class. Galton was interested not only in the genetic quality of people, he was also a promoter of statistics in social research and introduced the grading system to measure people' s genetic quality. By applying statistical methods to eugenics he gave `scientific' legitimacy to his theories, because mathematical procedures and statistics were considered proof of scientific objectivity. Galton graded blacks two grades below whites in intelligence.
The eugenic movement had a great influence on social science, on psychology with its intelligence tests, on behaviourism and on politics. The movement gained momentum at the beginning of the twentieth century in Britain and the USA, particularly after the biological laws of heredity, first discovered by Gregor Mendel in 1865, were posthumously published in 1901. Charles B. Davenport, the main promoter of the eugenics movement in the USA, persuaded the powerful Carnegie Foundation and other wealthy families in the USA to support the eugenics movement. In 1904, the Laboratory for Experimental Evolution was founded at Cold Spring Harbor; in 1907, came the Eugenics Records Office. The aim of these institutions and the eugenicists who worked there was to make inventories of the racial qualities of peoples and to increase the reproduction of superior races as well as to reduce the breeding of inferior ones. In the climate prevailing in the USA before and after World War I positive eugenics meant faster reproduction of the white Anglo-Saxons or, at least, the Nordic race; negative eugenics meant a reduction in reproduction of the `inferior' races, mainly of blacks and immigrants. These blatantly racist theories were supported by a host of scientists who demanded political action. (end of quote)

In Pivot of Civilization Sanger gives much credit to the racist ideas of Galton and eugenics. She only criticizes eugenics for offering as a solution increased fertility among the "fit" in place of her solution of preventing births among the "unfit". It is quite clear who Galton and his gang believed the unfit were. Yes,Ms. Sanger was right to be concerned that some might "misconstrue" her Negro Project as an attempt at genocide.

The link you provide says nothing as to who Margaret Sanger considered the unfit, Hugo. An article detailing the racist attitudes of Hegel and Galton says nothing about who Sanger or any of those participating in her program considered to be unfit. No more than three lines are given to discussing of Sanger and they say nothing as to whom she considered fit or unfit.

Addressing eugenics further in 1919, Sanger expressed her opinion:

Of course, Sanger was interested in promoting contraceptive birth control rather than abortion, which is the focus of this Planned Parenthood discussion. Not only does there seem to be evidence lacking that Sanger was on a mission to exterminate blacks, or even racist against them, the lack of abortion as a means of her birth control movement also seems to dispel these accusations of intended genocide.

Planned Parenthood addresses several of the quotes and ideas brought up by Hugo and the sites he has quoted or linked to. I'll be more than happy to research further to support the position of Planned Parenthood that quotes are either out of context, falsely attributed or entirely fabricated.

If you or anyone else wishes to continue further discussion of whether or not the original mission of Planned Parenthood was to somehow exterminate blacks or any other race, another topic may be the best place. Getting back to the original question for debate:
Is Planned Parenthood bias in favor of abortion? Or are they merely dealing with each pregnancy option in an objective manner, assisting women in pursuing their personal decisions?

I don't see how any of the information provided thus far about Margaret Sanger suggests that the organization is, or ever has been, bias in favor of abortion.

A bit from a 1932 edition of Maggie's Birth Control Review:



I guess it is not racism here.


Anyone familiar with the eugenics movement in America and Europe in the first third of the 20th Century knows beyond debate the ugly racism behind the movement. When you combine support for eugenics with the Negro Project you paint a very ugly picture. Once again in Pivot of Civilization Sanger only disagrees with the eugenists on what method should be used to reduce the proportion of "unfit" (i.e. non-Aryans and imbeciles). It is pertinent to the debate because people here are using PP's website and proclamations to support their opinions that PP is unbiased. PP is a political organization. Political organizations, particularly ones that hope to get federal funds, tend to hide controversial agendas.

It matters not if the 80-1 ratio of abortions vs. adoptions is due to PP counselors or due to the fact that individuals recognize the PP bias and go there for adoptions, it is still an obvious bias. PP runs abortion clinics, no adoption agencies. PP's goal is to reduce population. Therefore a natural bias against adoption. Sanger did not want it to get out that genocide was on her agenda, PP does not want it to get out that they will go to extremes to lower population growth.

As I provided in the very first posting of this topic, Planned Parenthood assists people with both abortions and adoptions. Their willingness to provide abortions in the face of controversy does not alone mean that they are bias in favor of abortion over adoption. Having a plan to assist people control the population which includes extensive education and the use of contraceptives also does not make them an inherently bias organization in favor of abortion.

They appear only to be bias because you continue to say they are. Where is the support for this? We've had a couple anecdotes claiming as much matched up with others disputing them. Do you have anything conclusive to support that Planned Parenthood is now, or has ever been, bias in favor of abortion rather than an organization which supports the choice of abortion in addition to sex education and contraceptive use?

You continue to suggest that genocide was some conspiracy of Sangers, yet you have provided nothing to support it. Where is support that either Sanger or the resulting organization of Planned Parenthood support genocide, Hugo?

And when you have the time to respond, could you tell me which of the 1932 BCR's you are quoting from so that I may review the entire article? They are listed here in case you aren't sure yourself and are borrowing from yet another site with either falsely attributed, fabricated or out of context quotes.

Edited: According to pro-life sites which quote only that which Hugo has presented, the quote comes from the February 1932 edition of the BCR. It may be good to note that Margaret Sanger ceased editing duties three years prior and that the article being quoted was written by a Mr. Roswell Johnson. I have been unable to locate the entire article or review the BCR edition to determine in what context the article was presented or how the BCR viewed the material. Other quotes from the BCR have been falsely attributed to Margaret Sanger and taken out of context, some of which are addressed in the Planned Parenthood page linked within my last posting.

Planned Parenthood is a great organization and I hope it prospers in the future.

What strikes me is the fact that many pro-choice foes claim that an organization like Planned Parenthood is "pro-abortion" and smear the group just because it is pro-choice. The anti-choice lobby must realize that they have no right to take away the freedoms of the American people, especially young women who are dirt poor, and don't want to go to the difficulties of pregnancy. It angers me that "pro-lifers" are trying to instill their own beliefs at the expense of the individual women, who are the one's who should be deciding what they want to do to their bodies and lives.

Last year in Alaska, there were anti-choice activists who went to Planned Parenthood and tried to force them to shut down because they wouldn't comply to their demands that abortion not be an option for young women. I was glad to see that many Alaskans (about 70% believe women should have the right to choose), were relieved to see that their efforts failed.

Planned Parenthood has always been a safe haven for our young people to go and solve their problems and to seek proper advice. Although getting an abortion may be an option at Planned Parenthood, I think it is proper that we give that choice to the young person, and pro-choice foes should stop attacking an organization that has graciously helped many of our young people.

It's nice that you can take a quote from 70 years ago and think that it applies to a modern-day organization. Heck, I can find plenty of quotes from just the last 10 years by Christians that are a lot more racist and hate-filled than that. Does that make all Christians racist?

In reality, it's obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. Planned Parenthood offers even-handed information on abortion, adoption and other options. They do not push abortion above adoption, they simply give options and allow the woman to choose. I'm sorry that an honest choice, not charged with hyper-emotionalism scares you.

For starters, that is an outlandish accusation to make against
a person you do not even know.

Secondly, in case you weren't aware of this fact:

The earth's population is in the billions. Higher than it
has ever been, in recorded history. We do not need to
be fruitful and multiply. There's no shortage of people!

Gee, I did not know Hitler, Stalin or Idi Amin either. I guess they could have been really nice people down deep.

There is no population crisis either. The population is expected to peak in this century and then go down. Of course this debate is over PP's bias toward abortion, which is quite clear.

The best way to find out if they have a bias towards abortion
would be for you to go, incognito, to a clinic, and have them
run a pregnancy test. After the results come back positive,
and they coerce you into the abortion, let's talk about it.

Until then, all you can base your opinion on is hearsay,
conjecture and salty statistics, on the part of some wacko anti-choicers.

Well I happen to know someone who has had 3 abortions. She apparently got pregnant very easily using withdraw and 2 were a day after her period and withdraw. And her story is that when she went to plan parent hood each time to find out first if she was pregnant. When they did confirm that she was, they told her that she too young, single 18-20-21. and how in the world would she be able to support both her and her child.

this was many years ago though. their first reaction was to tell her how will she care for the baby, and she was pressured through lies and deceit to have an abortion. They keep mentioning that at 2 months along it was just a blob, and tissue and not a baby that it was really nothing, no big deal. And made her feel she could not care for the baby. Never mentioning welfare or adoption et. And to top it off never offered counseling after the abortions.

Even as a strong Christian who does not believe in abortion, I will say women do have rights to do what they want over 18. Although I do think it should be illegal. But since it is not, my main concern and what I would fight for would be that it be a requirement that all planned parenthoods or any medical facilities would have mandatory access to all information that can be offered. Adoption information, public assistance, abstinace for not getting pregnant in the future. And most of all a video all about what this woman is going to go through if she decides to have an abortion. Which includes all stages of a babies development in the womb. What happens when she has an abortion not only to her but the baby, and the effects after and emotional and physical scaring after. I know of one woman who had only one abortion who never could have children after that because of scarring.

So there is more to what can be provided by plan parenthood then just talking someone into an abortion.

Planned Parenthood does provide more, as was discussed in the opening post for this topic. In case people are no longer taking the time to review this topic from the beginning, here again is some of the information provided from the outset:

Adoption: An Act of Love
The Whole Truth About Adoption
What If I'm Pregnant?
Planning for Pregnancy
International Family Planning Makes a World of Difference
Infertility


Is it? I keep seeing you justify your claims that they are bias because they have some mission to reduce the world population...
...yet included in the links provided they offer help with adoption, infertility and family planning. If they were truly so narrow sighted in their pursuit to control the population they wouldn't logically offer assistance with bringing additional lives into the world. So what is it again which makes this alleged bias so crystal clear for you?

Edited to add:
If either The Whole Truth About Pregnancy or Adoption: An Act of Love do not work, merely do a search for that title at the bottom of the screen you are taken to. Click on the matching article from the list and you can read for yourself the article. For reasons unknown, the link I have copied and pasted reads as an error. The additional articles offered with search results are also good reading.

The pro-abortion bias is a means to an end, abortions do reduce population growth. The reason behind the bias is pertinent to the debate. It is just like a criminal case where it helps to give evidence of motive.

A bias does not mean that all other options are excluded. In our political environment the chances of PP being given access to public schools and public funds would be nill without their broader menu of services.

Try this on PP's search engine, search these terms "abortion" vs. "adoption", abortion wins 665 to 93. "abortion providers" vs. "adoption providers", guess who wins 25 to zip? Maybe "abortion services" vs. "adoption services" would show less bias? Nope, guess who wins 83-0.

My search for adoption providers returned 24 results. Similarly, my search for adoption services returned 50 results. This in contrast to your claims of having zero search results for both.

Of course, numerous articles with the word abortion included in them indicates a wealth of information and subject matter dealing with abortion, not a bias. There are articles returned for abortion results which mention it in discussing adoption in a positive light just as there are articles returned with adoption results mentioning it alongside discussion of abortion as a means of dealing with pregnancy.

If a person looks in the right place he can usually find statistics
to back up any erroneous claims....

If you really want to know if they are biased towards abortion
then you would have to get a group of pregnant women,
who would go undercover to various P.P. clinics and find out
through actual one on one counseling.

Dateline does this sort of investigative reporting all the time.

Until I see solid proof, I will not believe your claim.

I repeated the search, once again no results for (with the asterisks) "adoption services" and "adoption providers". Using the asterisks will insure that specific term is in the article. Otherwise you simply pull up all articles with both words in it.PP has zero interest in providing adoption information. They do make a few curtsies toward adoption to maintain their powerful political position.

Go to PP's frontpage and click on the "Behind Every Choice There is a Story" icon on the right. Read all the stories of women who chose abortion. Then read the stories of women who chose adoption. Whoops, there are not any stories about women who chose adoption.

Behind Every Choice is a Story is a book that doesn't appear to be available in its entirity on their site, Hugo. Just looking though I found cited stories dealing with both adoption and biological parenting:
Of course, the site isn't going to provide us with all 272 pages for us to skim through without charge. The book deals with all choices from adoption to abortion, to the use of conventional birth control to use of the relatively new morning after pill. Not every story deals with any personal experience with making a choice; some address historical perspectives on the reproductive rights of women.


So you say. Do you have anything to support this or is this yet more conjecture on your part?

They only want to reduce the population so they are bias toward abortion... oh, well they only provide information about adoption and portray it in a favorable light because they have to...
[Not a direct quote]

A nice song and dance but you have yet to actually support it. I might as well make an argument for Americas Debate being xenophobic with topics dealing with international issues only because they have to in order to maintain an image of integrity. How many more times will a search for America show up than a search for Brazil? Thus far all I've seen you provide is an opinion with poor support for it. You've provided information which shows Planned Parenthood has more information regarding abortion issues, but none of that information displays a bias in favor of the procedure.

Searches for "abortion providers" and "abortion services" doesn't turn up articles pushing for people to have abortions or for abortion to be preferred over adoption. Articles with those words dealing with the international issues surrounding abortion, the legal battles abroad and at home, and information for those seeking it does not translate into a bias.

Yes, that book does have stories about women who chose adoption. You would not know that from the stories PP decided to highlight. Another piece of evidence indicating a pro-abortion bias.

A collection of individual stories about individual choices somehow reflects a pro-abortion bias on the organization of Planned Parenthood? The book is about the right of women to choose how they handle individual pregnancies. The women still choose and Planned Parenthood still supports any decision whether it be adoption, abortion or biological parenting. All I've seen is that Planned Parenthood supports the choice of the individual, including the controversial choice to abort, and you are somehow trying to turn that support into pro-abortion bias on behalf of the organization.

Planned Parenthood allows women to make their own decisions. If women choose to have an abortion it is their responsibility, not the responsibility or bias of Planned Parenthood.

The stories I quoted in my last posting were provided from the Planned Parenthood site regarding the book, so yes I would know that they have stories regarding both adoption and abortion based on those stories they chose to highlight.

Hugo, if you believed people should only drink Coca Cola, and I said they should have the right to choose either Coke or Pepsi, would you argue that I was biased towards Pepsi?

As you should know, being a Libertarian and all, advocating for a particular right doesn't mean you are necessarily biased in favor of only one action regarding that right.