Sunday, March 16, 2008

Donations from Eugenicists Welcomed by Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood of Idaho falls victim to a hoax and reveals a willingness to target black babies for elimination.

Check out the transcript, it's pretty chilling.

They're sorry, though. What a relief!

19 Comments:

Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 16, 2008 at 8:20 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Hey, we all have a job to do. Who are we to stand in the way of Planned Parenthood’s mission?

;)

March 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Randal typically you make Diano's argument for him.

And David, say what you will about abortion opponents, they advocate legal protections for ALL fetuses and babies.

The neat thing about this hoax is that it reminds people about the roots of Planned Parenthood which was founded by a proud eugenicist and liberal fascist, Margaret Sanger.

March 17, 2008 at 6:19 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Randal typically you make Diano's argument for him.

I disagree with this. But even so, Dave needs all the help he can get.
Besides, if the Libs can dabble in some ethnic cleansing in the name of baby killing "choice", I can joke about it.

March 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano:

Is abortion murder, is it just a killing, or is it something else?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

March 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM 
Anonymous r said...

One of the greatest Liberal idiot contradictions of all time is how they will weep and defend from the Death Penalty even the most deserving of vile creatures of our society while all the while militantly defending a woman’s “right/choice” to murder her innocent unborn baby.
Crazy backward Libs and their misplaced sympathies…

March 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Contrast that moronic Lib paradox with the Right which wants to kill violent predator scumbags while protecting innocent unborn children who have harmed no one.
Some “choice”, that.

March 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM 
Anonymous jokeman said...

Enjoy...


http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=1022

March 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM 
Anonymous r said...

The argument for protecting unborn children might carry a little more weight if conservatives supported funding the poor so those innocent babies don't grow up in poverty and turn to crime.

Sure! That's what this group was trying to do! :)

March 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano:

"Something else" really isn't an answer, although the rest of your post is very telling. You point out that:

"The argument for protecting unborn children might carry a little more weight if conservatives supported funding the poor so those innocent babies don't grow up in poverty and turn to crime."

If you believe that is the rationale for allowing abortion on demand then do you support Planned Parenthood eugenics?

Abortion on demand is rarely, if ever, used for the health of the mother. Conversely, abortion on demand is commonly used as a family planning tool.

So which is it then Diano, do you support abortion on demand for the health of the mother or for family planning purposes, or both.? If you support abortion for either purpose, would you consider abortion as murder for either scenario?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

PS - don't we already spend enough on the poor and others that feed at the public trough?

March 17, 2008 at 4:27 PM 
Anonymous r said...

don't we already spend enough on the poor and others that feed at the public trough?

Yes we do.

March 17, 2008 at 4:55 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 17, 2008 at 11:52 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano:

You are a sick and twisted man. In the liberal progressive spirit you advocate the notion that the people that don't agree with your viewpoint should have been aborted.


Also, you also think that abortion is not murder and that no man should be allowed to regulate it. What about women? There are plenty of women that believe that abortion is murder. Does that make a difference? Should a woman be able to abort her baby if she know it will have a birh defect?

Lastly, our Nation gives plenty of money to third world countries to deliver medicine, food, and clean drinking water. Should we give up all of our wealth to save the world, especially those that live under totalitarian regimes?

March 18, 2008 at 4:44 AM 
Anonymous r said...

I do not take a political stance on the topic of Abortion. But, as with any number of other topics, I do take issue with the twisted dishonesty of the filthy Libs as they try to defend and justify baby killing (while all the while weeping for Death Row murderers) with all their usual slant and word games.
But I don’t really need to post much here to make my point; just read Dave’s posts again.

March 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 18, 2008 at 11:22 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano:

After your recommendation that Gil, Randal and myself should have been aborted, I responded to you with a couple of questions. Your answer prompted me to look at some "public" records. I think that I have you figured out, and it only took about 3-5 minutes.

You are single, and 44. You lived with your parents until about 2000 (in Havertown) then you moved to an apartment in Broomall.

Query: Are you a champion of the homosexual agenda and more generally, secular humanism? (obviously YES)

I ask because if you are a part of the homosexual agenda, even as a participant, I can show you where you can go to get help. A life free from sin will help you out immensely.

By the way, I am not judging you at all and I offer my hand out to you in Christian fellowship, that is all. You too can be set free.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

March 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

The men have ZERO rights to interfere, vote or rule on it.

The majority of women believe abortion should be available, so the outcome of regulation without the men involved, is not in doubt.

Lame. Does this mean that women should be precluded from intoning on and influencing male issues? Does this go for straights on gay issues too? How about gays on straight issues? Non-smokers on smokers? Blacks on white issues? Whites on black issues? (Well, with this last one at least we would keep more of our charity tax dollars!)

What about all the Libs that interfere, vote and rule on topics dear to me?

You are a silly man, Dave.

March 18, 2008 at 12:35 PM 
Anonymous r said...

It’s good to know that non-gun owners are now preempted from weighing in on gun-owning rights, eh Dave? (snicker)

I'm sorry, but it's just so darn fun to pick apart the childish dishonesty of Libism! ;)

March 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home