Apparently, Secular Pro-Life is so irked by Planned Parenthood that they are willing to make unfounded charges about what they do with donations. True Pooka investigates…
Now that you’re done reading I’m going to show you a magic trick I call; “Proper research done without confirmation bias followed by conclusions drawn based on experience and not ignorance.”
Planned Parenthood issued a number of statements following the Komen incident. The following press release here gives a more thorough explanation of what they intended to do with the money as opposed to the rather vague “wildest dreams” quote linked by our secularprolife blogger (curiously, the blogger in question didn’t link to this more detailed summary of what Planned Parenthood had in mind).
Up until now, I haven’t seen anyone except Matt Dillahunty and Beth Presswood give SPL the healthy amount of skepticism it really needs. Especially if they are tabling at atheist conventions. More people need to know what they actually do, and you are not going to get that in passing at their table. Why does this group get a pass where another group that attempts to pawn off pseudoscience on the community does not?
Simple, because it is about women and women aren’t valued in too many corners of the atheist and skeptical communities. They want to debunk bigfoot (over and over and over and over!) for the next 35 years, but not look at anything that might have to do with something that actually impacts society.
Unfortunately, I don’t think many secular pro-choice people take them seriously.Thanks to you and Matt Dilahunty, I actually do now. Trying to engange them on their arguments is exceptionalluy frustrating, though. These people simply do not argue in good faith, which makes arguing with them pretty infuruatiing.
But again, thank you for bringing them to my attention.
Are there *any* forced pregnancy arguments from SPL that aren’t the same old religious arguments and debunked ‘science’ run through an Atheo-washing?
I’ll repeat what I said over at PZs.
The use of annual mammograms is currently a point of contention in the healthcare community, especially among women aged 40 to 50. The federal guidelines were recently changed to recommend a reduction in who gets routine mammograms and how often.
What you’re seeing, then, is the natural outcome. Recommendations change, the testing changes. It’s what would be expected.
And the people who create this “j’accuse” claptrap know all of this full well. They’re the worst kind of liars. Their ethics have now been shown to be thoroughly bankrupt. They are not to be trusted.
In a way, it’s kind of nice to see an organization “out” itself so quickly to be so ethically empty. Saves us time.
Thanks!
I have been browsing online more than 3 hours nowadays, but I by no means discovered any interesting article like yours. It is lovely value sufficient for me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the internet will probably be much more useful than ever before.