Jill Stanek has a post up at her blog about a black Baptist church that invited Planned Parenthood to teach their kids about teen pregnancy.

There are those who argue that conservatives keep voting for those whose policies are against their own best interests. Even if that were true, we'd have nothing on those who extend a hearty welcome to the group that's trying to wipe out their race, one baby at a time.

Comments

[Jason Taylor]

Isn't that rather like inviting the coyotes to teach the ewes about lambs?

[Ben W]

Gina, do you really think that Planned Parenthood is trying to wipe out the Negro race? This seems a bit far-fetched..
Even if PP was trying to do that 80 years ago (before the civil rights movement), attitudes have changed a lot since then.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Have they? For everyone?

[Jason Taylor]

No Ben, I think their wiping out is laudibly indifferent to race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. It is however, markedly prejudiced against the inconvenient.

[Ben W]

"Have they? For everyone?"

No, not for everyone. But to assert that a large organization has a persistent, genocidal yet hidden bias requires substantial proof.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[Gina]

Fair enough. You could start with these:

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2008/02/planned-parenth.html

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2008/03/idaho-planned-p.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352537,00.html

http://lonestartimes.com/2008/03/17/black-slaughter-planned-parenthood/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/newsandviews/2008/04/planned_parenthood_accused_of_1.html

A couple of statistics from within those articles:

“79% of Planned Parenthood clinics are placed in minority neighborhoods (black and Hispanic).” (From The Advocate quoted by the Lone Star Times.)

“According to the student group, 14 million African-American babies have been aborted since 1973, constituting the largest source of African-American deaths, exceeding that of terrorism, cancer, AIDS, and heart disease combined.” (This is from the Christian Post as quoted by NPR, which said its account was the most objective they could find.)

The largest source of deaths—and aside from terrorism, the only deliberate cause of deaths out of those listed.

One more thing: Can you point me to any statements that PP has made renouncing its founder's stance on eugenics? I tried searching, and came up with this:

http://www.voicescarryblog.com/bob-jones-university-renounces-their-past-racism-planned-parenthood-we-are-waiting/

[Ben W]

Well, since minorities tend to have the highest birth rates, STDs, and poverty, it makes sense that addressing these would require going to the minority neighborhoods.

Nearly all of the links that you posted were related to the UCLA student investigation and phone calls (particularly just the one with Kersey, with PP in Idaho). I appreciate the links, but they are all just dealing with the same case, and don't seem to indicate a widespread attitude within PP.

The difference between Bob Jones University and PP is that Bob Jones actually committed ongoing racist actions - since the parent organization of Planned Parenthood just supported voluntary eugenics, I don't see that they need to apologize.

On the other hand, isn't it telling that nearly everyone who calls Planned Parenthood "racist" is pro-life? Might it be possible that there is another motive here, and this is just an ad hominem attack against one of the most visible supporters of abortion?

[Gina]

I didn't say "apologize." I said "renounce." There's a difference.

[Jason Taylor]

Oh come. If someone is to advocate mass-murder why does it matter whether they are also rascist?

[Ben W]

I'm sorry, Gina, your point is lost on me. I don't see that Planned Parenthood needs to renounce or apologize for the eugenics stance of their founder, as I don't believe there is anything immoral about non-coerced eugenics.

I'm just worried that stances like this make Christians look like crazy right-wing loonies.. and I agree also with Jason.

[Gina]

Your concern is touching. :-) But I was under the impression that eugenics, by its very nature, usually ended up being coerced, even if it didn't start out that way. There's nearly always someone involved who feels entitled to make the decisions about someone else's childbearing.

[Fred]

@Ben W

You're assuming that Planned Parenthood is completey honest about wanting to exterminate Black people. Like the scientists of the Tuskegee experiments, PP portrays itself as looking out for Black people's welfare when the opposite is true. To make matters worse, there are civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Julian Bond (of the NAACP) who have sold their souls to the abortion industry.

Given all this deception, it's sadly understandable that Black people are "pro-choice" or at least indifferent to abortion. I used to be one of them until the Lord brought in my life pro-life friends (e.g., my wife) who opened my eyes to abortion being "black genodcide." (BTW, "black genocide" was coined by Jesse Jackson before he sold out.)

Some good news is that pro-lifers are making headway into Black communities through education programs and crisis pregnancy centers. Hence, those who hear the truth as I did come to view PP as the modern-day KKK they truly are. Read more here:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14858

So, Gina is correct that Black support for abortion is due to coercion by PP and its Black allies.

[Benjamin Ady]

Gina,

I'm following Ben and Jason more easily than you. It seems silly to say that there have been 14 million abortions of "African American" (whatever *that* means) babies, making abortion the leading cause of death among "African Americans" since 1973, and use this to support a claim that Planned Parenthood is a racist, genocidal organization.

In fact your use of the word "genocide" in the title borders on the absurd.

"The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group."

Planned Parenthood in the U.S. has approximately a one billion dollar annual budget. They operate nearly 900 local health clinics across the U.S. I'm guessing that if you add up paid staff and volunteers, there are probably at least 10,000 people who work for them. I couldn't find an exact figure anywhere, but that's probably a big underestimate.

I'm genuinely curious about this: How many of these 10,000 or more do you imagine to be actively working toward the genocide of "African Americans"? Do you personally know anyone whose goal it is to accomplish the genocide of "African Americans"?

Have you even read the article which Ms. Stanek is citing? The Planned Parenthood volunteer referenced in that article, Rashti, comes off as a sensitive, wise, and amazingly helpful person. Kudos to her for being out in the community getting parents and teens to talk to each other about sex, and encourage teens to think and talk about the consequences of sex *before* rather than after they end up pregnant or with AIDS or some other disease. She clearly cares deeply about both the "African American" and "White" members of the group to whom she was presenting, and has the wisdom and cultural sensitivity to be able to incite helpful discussion in groups even when there are disagreements between them and the organization she represent. Here's to uplifting discussion rather than downtearing demonization!

I realize you are just quoting the Fox news article you linked. The first person listed in that article among the group who absurdly called abortion a "genocide on the black community" is the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, who also said, for instance,

"if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years"

Is this really the sort of person whose words you want to be re-broadcasting with your own support added?

Your post leads one to ask lots of questions--like how many "white" babies have been aborted since 1973? How high up the list of causes of death among "whites" does that make abortion?

In fact it looks like a definite majority of abortions are for "white" babies. Does that mean planned parenthood is working toward genocide of "whites" as well?

Where do "mixed race" babies come into the statistics?

Hope I haven't been too long winded =)

[Fred]

@ Benjamin Ady

Actually, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger stated that she and her organization planned to exterminate the Black race. See videos below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_MijL7q9eo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic&NR=1

Also, check out this video of PP operators accepting donations from White racists who want to kill Black people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiFOFUGIhFE

Planned Parented sure sounds like a Black genocidal group to me.

[Ben W]

There's nothing new there, Fred. Interestingly enough, in none of the videos did Sanger say that she wanted to exterminate the black race.. she supports general eugenics, lower birth rates and birth control for poor people. All of the quotes taken from her are consistent with those views, but are carefully picked to paint a racist picture. None of the quotes say anything about exterminating the Black race.

Here's an example: the first video mentions Sanger's involvement with "the Negro Project". However, the video neglects to mention that also W.E.B. Du Bois was also involved in the project. I think it's quite a stretch to believe that a famous civil rights activist such as Du Bois would be involved in a genocide of the black race.

Lastly, Sanger was opposed to abortion (as she says in her autobiography, p217, from wiki).

[Gina]

Ben, what do you think eugenics is? To the best of my knowledge, it's never been practiced without extermination becoming a part of it.

[Ben W]

A definition I agree with (stealing from wikipedia): "a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of certain people and traits". The definition has varied with time, though.

The obvious example of eugenics is Nazi Germany in the 1940s or the sterilization of mental health patients in much of the Western World in the early 1900s. After WWII, eugenics got a bad name (justifiably) because of its association with human rights violations. Since then, it's mostly been limited to DNA testing for hereditary diseases and projects like the "genius sperm bank". Since the Human Genome Project, eugenics has been connected with bioengineering, and this is where it's most likely headed in the future (again, another area with potential for good and evil).

It's an important issue for my wife, since she's likely a carrier for hemochromotosis.

[Fred]

@ Ben W

Sanger could have lied to DuBois about Planned Parenthood's true intentions. If you can kill babies, then what's to stop you from engaging in other sins like racism and deception? Once duped, DuBois would convince other Black people to participate in the genocidal "Negro Project."

Even in this century, Planned Parenthood continues to lie about its racist past and present. The effects on the Black community have been horrific:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14858

So, I can't buy the argument that Planned Parenthood isn't racist.

[Fred]

@ Ben W

One more thing: are you pro-life or pro-choice?

[benjamin ady]

"If you can kill babies, then what's to stop you from engaging in other sins like racism and deception?"

Fred,

Indeed. And if you can, for instance, be unkind to your friends, or lose your temper and yell at your kids, or refuse to give your second jacket to someone who is naked, then what's to stop you from engaging in other sins like dropping nuclear bombs on civilian populations or torturing prisoners to death in countries occupied by your own army, or eating 1/2 again as many calories as you need while 30,000 kids starve to death every day?

I continue to not understand the desire to demonize Planned Parenthood. Are those in the "pro-life" community of the opinion that they are somehow inherently better, as individuals, than the thousands of individuals who work or volunteer for planned parenthood? (because this is the ... connotational gist I pick up in this thread) Are those in the "pro-life" community of the opinion that none of the organizations or religious denominations of which they are a part have anything super horrifyingly dark in their histories? I am ever so loosely associated with a presbyterian church, and I have very little doubt I could find, without too much effort, some really creepy horrible things that have been officially done or said, in the past, by presbyterians. Does that make, for instance, PCUSA, a BAD organization, or the people who associate with it bad or deceived people? I rather think not. In fact it's more to the point that just about any great leader you can name has done or said things that were completely off base, wrong, shocking etc. Does this make these leaders evil people, or the programs they implemented evil programs? Hardly. Does Martin Luther's anti-semitism make the Lutheran church an evil organization? Does it even go so far as to negate everything that Luther wrote, said, or did, leaving him to be considered a wholly evil person? Is there not room for nuance, for people and organizations to be mixtures of good and bad accomplishments and words?

PP is hardly equivalent to the Nazi regime in Germany in World War Two. I see Godwin's law has come true in this thread for sure. Loosely tossing around terms like "genocide" doesn't seem to me to be super productive.

Your thoughts?

[Fred]

@Benjamin Ady

Two things.

1.White Christians have apologized again and again for slaveowners using their faith to justify that evil institution. On the upside, White Christians remind everyone that only followers of Christ like William Wilberforce and the Quakers fought to end slavery.

So, when does Planned Parenthood plan to apologize for its racist origins?

2. Churches no matter their denomination exist not to destroy lives or condone racism, but to spread the Good News of eternal life through Christ. That original purpose is not negated because of the sins of some church members and leaders.

By contrast, Planned Parenthood does exist to destroy lives (i.e., unborn babies) and justify racism to boot. The good intentions of some volunteers doesn't negate PP's evil origins and goals.

So, your moral equivalence argument doesn't work. It's as bad as saying that a few dirty cops prove that police departments are as lawless and wicked as street gangs.

[Benjamin Ady]

Fred,

So ... you're quite happy to write off the inquisition, the crusades, etc. etc. etc. (and we don't really want to get into that list, do we?)with "Well, churches are really fundamentally good in their true purpose", but you're also quite happy to write off all the great work that so many people do on behalf of planned parenthood to help make the world a better place with "Well, PP is really fundamentally evil and racist."?

Am I misrepresenting your words?

I remember things used to be that clear to me as well. Having such clarity made things easier in some ways.

Your bringing up police and street gangs goes to exactly what I'm talking about. Police accomplish a certain amount of good, and a certain amount of evil, and which end of that spectrum one sees is strongly related to various things like where one grew up, the culture of one's family of origin, etc. etc. Same goes for street gangs. These things are not clear cut, but you seem to be insisting that they are. Which group is doing more "good", for instance, in the story of a son of Cambodian immigrants who can't speak Cambodian because he's lived here in the U.S. since he was two, but who is "deported" "back" to Cambodia at age 19 by the U.S. government because of his involvement with a "gang" who has been his sole source of community and encouragement for the last 8 years? Especially when he has a pregnant wife here in the states, and an unborn child whom he will likely never get to see?

Am I making any sense?

Are you at all able to consciously choose to turn off that "PP is fundamentally evil" thing, and perhaps take the chance to get to know someone who works for PP, or who volunteers for them, who deeply believes in what they are doing and who is actually helping to prevent teenage pregnancies in his or her community? How would getting to know such a person on a mutually respectful basis affect your views towards PP, I wonder?

[Jason Taylor]

I am inherantly better then those who work for Planned Parenthood insofar as I, in fact, do not belong to an organization that makes an obvious point of advocating infanticide. Even if he is in fact more dedicated then I. Just as, though a Tartar may be more brave, hardy, wilderness savvy, disciplined and faithful to his chieftains then I would be. But insofar as I never participated in building heaps of skulls I am in that particular instance better then him.

[labrialumn]

Write"Ichabod" over the doorframes of that 'church'

[Benjamin Ady]

Jason,

I am totally delighted that you were willing to come right out and say that you're convinced that you inherently better than folks who work for planned parenthood. Thank you for your honesty.

[LeeQuod]

Benjamin, my friend, by this response to Jason are you then implicitly saying that you yourself are no better than those who commit infanticide?

The "let me quote you out of context" sword cuts both ways.

And since I haven't been following this thread (tapestry, actually), can someone let me know if it's already been established that infanticide is in fact evil? And that it is transcendently evil, such that it is always wrong at any point of time and space? And that this transcendence must therefore derive from some transcendent (and therefore not human) entity, since otherwise it's merely a social construct - which would make it once again something temporary, established by people whose lives are temporary, and therefore not evil in any cross-cultural and trans-historical way?

[Jason Taylor]

Anyone who has not committed a sin that someone else has committed is in that one particular "better" Benjamin. Whether or not he is better over all and whether or not he would have committed the same sin in the same circumstance. For me to elaborately make denials of that fact for the sake of demonstrating my piety and humility and loudly proclaim what a miserable sinner I am would be a more complex form of boasting. While in fact I am a miserable sinner and do not need to be reminded of that theologically, I also am not particulary haunted by that and it would be foolish hypocrisy to pretend to be.
The Pharisee was not berated for refraining from saying that he too was a contracted tax farmer who had defrauded both the peasants and the state. Whatever sins he committed he probably did not commit exactly that sin. He was berated for congratulating himself unduly for the sins he had by chance not committed instead of rejoicing in his heart at the Publican's repentance.

[Jason Taylor]

Benjamen, the lense through which one sees the police is irrelevant to whether the police are a good or an evil institution. Insofar as the police do evil they are being inefficient police and insofar as street gangs do evil they are being efficient street gangs.

And your comments on ambiguity beg the question of why one is obligated to refrain from interpreting ambiguities in favor of ones own sympathies if good and evil are a matter of perspective?

[Benjamin Ady]

Lee

"you then implicitly saying that you yourself are no better than those who commit infanticide?"

Thank you. You ask intresting questions.

Leaving alone, for a moment, the question of whether abortion is equivalent to infanticide, it's not clear to me how thinking of myself as "better" or "not better", or in this particular discussion, how thinking of my group as "better" or "not better" than some other particular group, in terms of our "sins" (or to widen the language a bit, in terms of the evil that we facilitate or propagate), is super helpful, practically.

I mean to say from my perspective it's probably more effective and useful for me to speak out against the "sins" and evil of my in-group. Seems like there's more purchase for facilitating social change here. Doesn't seem like all the railing against Planned parenthood as "them" has really accomplished much of anything over the last decades. I of course could be totally wrong on this.

Dan Allender once said something at a conference I was at that I've found incredibly helpful to me. He said anytime we try to talk about the sin in the other, without first sincerely realizing that we are indeed more guilty than they, we will come across as condescending.

I find condescension, in the sense Dan was talking about, doesn't help me get much of anywhere in relationships.

Beyond all that, since this whole discussion is taking place in the context of what could reasonably be called a Christian blog, it seems to me to be reasonable to understand Jesus words to mean that we are all guilty of a rather largish stack of murders and infanticides--I mean if hate is morally equivalent to murder. There have certainly been a large number of times when I've felt incredibly powerful negative emotion toward my own children which I'm guessing it would be reasonable to classify as "hate" in the sense that Jesus was using it.

I'm interested that Gina has not (nor has anyone else, it seems) responded to my questions about the appropriateness of the use of the word "genocide" in this whole context, specifically accusations of racist genocide against the "black community".

Is it reasonable to say that the main people Jesus took an "I'm morally superior to you, and you are morally corrupt and evil" attitude toward during his 3 years of public life were the religious leaders who were all incredibly clear on how their group was better than other groups because other groups were filled with sinners and evil people, and they were inherently better than those groups on whatever axes you might care to name?

What would Jesus' take on Planned Parenthood be, I wonder? Would he be accusing them of "genocide"? What groups did he ever level accusations of any sorts against? Were they the out-groups--the Romans, for instance, or were they his in-groups?

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Benjamin, I think I covered the topic of the appropriateness of the word "genocide" back when I was answering Ben W's questions. But let's set that aside for a moment. I'm interested in your contention that calling evil acts what they are is inherently condescending and designed to drive people away. Would you then say that no one must ever call any genocide "genocide" -- that, say, what happened in Rwanda must never be labeled "genocide" -- because it sounds so bad to those who perpetrated it?

[Jason Taylor]

Benjamin, the fact that He didn't "level accusations" against gentiles comes from the same reason as a drill sergeant only berates trainees from his own army. It does not necessarily have anything to do with who was more or less virtuous.

Furthermore in Jesus' time, being to quick to judge was the problem. In are time, it is quite common for the problem to be not judgeing at all.

In any case Jesus also never committed the absurdity of saying Jews were guilty of abandoning children on hillsides or forceing slaves to fight for the amusement of mobs. Which of course, they were not. To claim that refraining from a sin is not superior to commiting that sin is ridiculous, and I never claimed to be superior overall-because in fact it is a matter of indifference to me-only superior in a particular instance of not commiting a particular sin. A sober man is not being arrogant in claiming to be a better driver then a drunk one. Even if the drunk one is as it happens a far better man in ordinary circumstance which has little to do with his driving.

Furthermore the defining of judgeing as any condemnation for sin inevitably leads to "you're judging me for judging, "Well you're judging me for judging you for judging", ad infinitum. The point of this verse was to forbid condemnation for the purpose of sadism and flattering one's own righteousness. And to remind people to avoid presumption. In the second case, I am a citizen and have a theoretical say over which customs are pernicious and those who are loudest about judgementalism are not exactly prudent about giving their own opinions in this regard. As to the first point of the verse, I am not going out of my way to flatter my own righteousness because being not-guilty of mass murder is poor flattery and in any case I have enough of a sense of humor about myself to know that it is a ridiculous enterprise. Whether that qualifies as humility("Look everyone-I'm humble!")I don't know. Nor care much.

As for hate being morally equivalent to murder, it also says that whosoever says to his brother Raca is answerable to the Sanhedrin. Even though the Sanhedrin did not, as far as I know, try people for saying Raca. Not to mention that the verse is not meant to imply that it is OK to use any insult but Raca and to insult anyone but one's brother. If one is to interpret out of context, one should make a full job of it.

Furthermore, even murder has gradations, and it is generally, and quite reasonably held that someone who kills someone he finds with his wife is different from a serial killer.

[Ben W]

We're all sinners and unworthy of grace. We should avoid sin and work towards steering other people away from sin, regardless of how severe that sin is.

To that end, will attacking Planned Parenthood as racist help prevent abortion? I don't think so. I think that the heart of the issue is the debate over the rights of the child - many people doubt whether abortion really is murder. All else is secondary - arguments about Planned Parenthood and embryonic stem cell research are just sideshows.

To answer Fred, I'm neither fully pro-choice or pro-life, but somewhere in between.. I'd prefer not to say more, as it's not relevant to the debate and would probably open me up to ad hominem attacks.