Susan G. Komen + Planned Parenthood

[All-American]

You're missing my entire point, it seems. I never said anything about Huntsman Cancer Institute donating to Planned Parenthood. You're taking a narrow view on what I said, which was to ask if you're confident that Huntsman Cancer Foundation donates to ANY organization that provides funding to any other organization that supports low-income free breast exam clinics while still supporting a woman's choice to receive an abortion. Maybe Huntsman doesn't donate to Planned Parenthood directly, but do you know any of the organizations they DO donate to end up donating money to any organization LIKE Planned Parenthood? If you're taking a principled stand against Komen's donations to Planned Parenthood for the express purpose of providing a service unrelated to abortion, are you willing to stand against Huntsman donating money to [fill in charity name here] who donates money to [fill in other charity name here] who donates money to Planned Parenthood (or some other charity clinic that provides cancer screenings as well as birth control)? How far down that rabbit hole are you willing to go to protect your principles?

I asked a yes or no question to you. Neither the word "yes" nor "no" appeared in that entire paragraph. If you'll do me the courtesy of answering my questions, I'll do the same for you.

My principle here is this: I don't want to knowingly contribute, even if indirectly, to the nation's largest providers of abortions, when there are other equally deserving recipients of my charitable donations. Do I meticulously screen the providers of services which I purchase or charitable organizations to which I contribute to see with which foundations they do business? No. Would I withhold my donations if I found out that the Huntsman Institute was donating to an organization (say, a hospital), who was NOT the nation's largest provider of abortions, and whose very name practically stands for the principle of abortion, which nevertheless also provided abortions? In all likelihood, no. Do I ignore a front page article on CNN.com loudly advertising the fact that Komen donates to Planned Parenthood? No. Where an institution has very publicly aligned itself with an institution which is not only supportive of, but indeed, devoted to a principle which I do not support, without begruding of others the right to do as they wish with what they have, I'll direct my charitable contributions elsewhere.

Here's another question: What if Huntsman Cancer Foundation accepted a gift from Komen now. Why does that not offend your principled stance on the matter?

Because that's the opposite direction of the money stream. I want my dollar to go to cancer research, but not to Planned Parenthood. If I donate to Komen, that dollar could go to Hunstman, and it could go to Planned Parenthood. If I donate to Hunstman, so far as I can tell, it won't be going to Planned Parenthood.

[Tim]

I asked a yes or no question to you. Neither the word "yes" nor "no" appeared in that entire paragraph. If you'll do me the courtesy of answering my questions, I'll do the same for you.

See, it seems ridiculous to me that someone as effing brilliant as you (I'm not being sarcastic -- you're thousand times smarter and quicker than me) would not be able to parse the idea of a "yes" out of my explanation. Why do you need me to literally say "YES" when it's clear from my responses that I find your position extreme. It feels like you're just pushing for the hell of pushing, but since I want this discussion to continue, I'll flatter you and talk below your intelligence level:

YES, AA, I think your position is extreme. I think you're being naive about how the world works. I think your approach is the opposite of Christian, the opposite of productive, the opposite of charitable. YES, AA. YES!!!!!

My principle here is this: I don't want to knowingly contribute, even if indirectly, to the nation's largest providers of abortions, when there are other equally deserving recipients of my charitable donations. Do I meticulously screen the providers of services which I purchase or charitable organizations to which I contribute to see with which foundations they do business? No. Would I withhold my donations if I found out that the Huntsman Institute was donating to an organization (say, a hospital), who was NOT the nation's largest provider of abortions, and whose very name practically stands for the principle of abortion, which nevertheless also provided abortions? In all likelihood, no. Do I ignore a front page article on CNN.com loudly advertising the fact that Komen donates to Planned Parenthood? No. Where an institution has very publicly aligned itself with an institution which is not only supportive of, but indeed, devoted to a principle which I do not support, without begruding of others the right to do as they wish with what they have, I'll direct my charitable contributions elsewhere.

Because that's the opposite direction of the money stream. I want my dollar to go to cancer research, but not to Planned Parenthood. If I donate to Komen, that dollar could go to Hunstman, and it could go to Planned Parenthood. If I donate to Hunstman, so far as I can tell, it won't be going to Planned Parenthood.

There's the noble kind of principle and there's the selfish, stubborn kind. This feels like the latter. If you care about fighting cancer, detection is a part of it. If you oppose a clinic that provides free cancer detection exams to poor people because an alternate arm of the company also provides legal abortions, how do you combat the obvious view that you must not really care about cancer screening that much?

Do you avoid drinking all Pepsi sodas because Pepsi also has a subsidiary that creates and markets Starbucks Frappucino and Espresso drinks, and Lipton Iced Tea? Do you avoid buying Dell computers because Dell sells to the Chinese government, who in turn sells those computers to the North Korean government and market? Do you avoid staying in Marriott hotels because they offer pay-per-view pornography? If you answered no to any of those, I would suggest that the difference between these three examples and the PP examples is one of extremity.

Now, I understand that this is something that's emotional, and that's why we're not talking about Pepsico or Dell. But we're surrounded by companies and organizations that have webs and networks of relationships, and I would suggest that those relationships are the fiber of what the 21st century world so incredibly dynamic. Principles are neat and nice in theory, but I can't imagine trying to manage the ins and outs of who the companies I deal with give their money to. For an emotional example: Since it's clear what my feelings on our Defense industry are, do you think it bothers me that my company's Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system is beginning to be used as the core of large-scale weapons-related projects? Absolutely! Do I throw the baby out with the bathwater, though? Not a chance. There's too much good coming out of the company to let that negative outweigh it.

I boycotted Chick-fil-A for about a year over their direct financial support of anti-gay marriage initiatives. I didn't want my dollars going to it. But after a while my awareness that I could never control the dollars I spent on any other companies or restaurants became apparent -- It was more an issue of visibility at that point. Sure, I knew that Chick-fil-A was spending some of their profit on things I'm morally opposed to, but I didn't know if any of the other companies I dealt with were donating money as well. Chick-fil-A was the target in the media, but there may be dozens of companies donating to it. In the end I decided to just focus on what I do care about at Chick-fil-A: delicious chicken sandwiches.

Komen is an incredible organization that does a mountain of good. I believe that your position of making them suffer because they choose to stay focused on their goal of stopping cancer rather than letting the complex network of relationships that make the world run be a part of the equation. That, to me at least, is an extreme position.

Tim

[Tim]

I think you're splitting hairs, Tim. By that logic we would probably never give any money to any organization. For example, my brother won't shop at Home Depot because they didn't criticize a gay rights' parade for altering the Home Depot logo to somehow support gay rights. So, he goes to Lowe's, but I'm sure that Lowe's probably gives to someone somewhere that he dislikes. ACE too. Everyone disagrees with everyone.

Paying tithing to the Church when you find Prop 8 reprehensible is a very similar issue. Each person can establish their own personal, "that's too much" level of reasoning to not support an organization.

That's what I'm talking about, though. You're arguing my point exactly. By AA's logic we shouldn't give any money to anyone because of the fact that they may be connected to someone who maybe down the road does something we disagree with.

[goplayintraffic]

That's what I'm talking about, though. You're arguing my point exactly. By AA's logic we shouldn't give any money to anyone because of the fact that they may be connected to someone who maybe down the road does something we disagree with.

That's called prerogative, not being extreme or illogical. Extremism is vandalizing a Komen site because of relatively small financial relationship with PP. Shifting a small amount of money from Komen to another institution that doesn't have (or isn't so open about) a relationship to PP is hardly extreme or illogical.

[Tim]

That's called prerogative, not being extreme or illogical. Extremism is vandalizing a Komen site because of relatively small financial relationship with PP. Shifting a small amount of money from Komen to another institution that doesn't have (or isn't so open about) a relationship to PP is hardly extreme or illogical.

In my view it is. I guess we disagree.

[Pelado]

Do you avoid staying in Marriott hotels because they offer pay-per-view pornography?

On principle, yes. I believe that product should be included in the price of the room.

[Tim]

On principle, yes. I believe that product should be included in the price of the room.

LOL!

[Tim]

I want to add another piece of data that I've used as part of why I feel the way I feel in this particular case. I saw it on the web the other day and it surprised me.



AA, you mentioned the fact that Planned Parenthood is essentially the poster child for abortion, that there are news articles, etc. How much of that publicity about Planned Parenthood is provided by anti-abortion critics? How often have you seen Planned Parenthood employees and supporters standing in front of churches arguing in favor of abortion? From my view and experience, Planned Parenthood goes about their advocacy and services in a dignified, quiet way. I lived two doors down from the PP clinic when I first moved to Raleigh and they were a quiet member of the neighborhood. To suggest that their the poster child or flag bearer of abortions is not a representation of their message, it's a representation of their opponents' message. Fine, we may not agree on the question of donations, that's okay, but are you willing to accept that your view of Planned Parenthood is colored by the efforts of their opponents, not by them or their actions directly?

On my mission I hated it when investigators clung to stereotypes of the church that had been given to them by people who were clearly opponents of the church. You know how those Spaniards can be -- nothing would/could convince them that the negative descriptions of our church weren't accurate.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I can't be the only person enjoying the rich irony of Tim describing a position as extreme

[Tim]

I can't be the only person enjoying the rich irony of Tim describing a position as extreme

Wonderful!

[All-American]

See, it seems ridiculous to me that someone as effing brilliant as you (I'm not being sarcastic -- you're thousand times smarter and quicker than me) would not be able to parse the idea of a "yes" out of my explanation. Why do you need me to literally say "YES" when it's clear from my responses that I find your position extreme. It feels like you're just pushing for the hell of pushing, but since I want this discussion to continue, I'll flatter you and talk below your intelligence level:

YES, AA, I think your position is extreme. I think you're being naive about how the world works. I think your approach is the opposite of Christian, the opposite of productive, the opposite of charitable. YES, AA. YES!!!!!

Okay. I assume that you're answering the other question yes as well, correct? You also think that it would be extreme to stop donating to Komen if they stopped donating to Planned Parenthood, yes? (Thus far, you've only said that you would react if somebody took that position here. You've not said how you would react.)

It matters that I'm getting yes and no answers to the questions, by the way. I'm not just being obstinate. I'm being careful not to attribute to you a position you aren't actually taking.

There's the noble kind of principle and there's the selfish, stubborn kind. This feels like the latter. If you care about fighting cancer, detection is a part of it. If you oppose a clinic that provides free cancer detection exams to poor people because an alternate arm of the company also provides legal abortions, how do you combat the obvious view that you must not really care about cancer screening that much?

Probably by donating money to another organization devoted to fighting cancer-- preferably one that doesn't also publicly align itself with Planned Parenthood.

It's a bit of a sleight of hand you attempted there by characterizing legal abortions as an "alternate arm" of the company. I won't even try to argue that it is more accurate to characterize the provision of abortions as a central part of the organization. I think instead that there is enough ground on which to stand simply by noting that nobody in the world terminates more viable pregnancies than Planned Parenthood.

Do you avoid drinking all Pepsi sodas because Pepsi also has a subsidiary that creates and markets Starbucks Frappucino and Espresso drinks, and Lipton Iced Tea? Do you avoid buying Dell computers because Dell sells to the Chinese government, who in turn sells those computers to the North Korean government and market? Do you avoid staying in Marriott hotels because they offer pay-per-view pornography? If you answered no to any of those, I would suggest that the difference between these three examples and the PP examples is one of extremity.

Now, I understand that this is something that's emotional, and that's why we're not talking about Pepsico or Dell. But we're surrounded by companies and organizations that have webs and networks of relationships, and I would suggest that those relationships are the fiber of what the 21st century world so incredibly dynamic. Principles are neat and nice in theory, but I can't imagine trying to manage the ins and outs of who the companies I deal with give their money to. For an emotional example: Since it's clear what my feelings on our Defense industry are, do you think it bothers me that my company's Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system is beginning to be used as the core of large-scale weapons-related projects? Absolutely! Do I throw the baby out with the bathwater, though? Not a chance. There's too much good coming out of the company to let that negative outweigh it.

I boycotted Chick-fil-A for about a year over their direct financial support of anti-gay marriage initiatives. I didn't want my dollars going to it. But after a while my awareness that I could never control the dollars I spent on any other companies or restaurants became apparent -- It was more an issue of visibility at that point. Sure, I knew that Chick-fil-A was spending some of their profit on things I'm morally opposed to, but I didn't know if any of the other companies I dealt with were donating money as well. Chick-fil-A was the target in the media, but there may be dozens of companies donating to it. In the end I decided to just focus on what I do care about at Chick-fil-A: delicious chicken sandwiches.

Komen is an incredible organization that does a mountain of good. I believe that your position of making them suffer because they choose to stay focused on their goal of stopping cancer rather than letting the complex network of relationships that make the world run be a part of the equation. That, to me at least, is an extreme position.

Tim

I don't drink Pepsi, actually, and if I did, I wouldn't stop on account of them making coffee and tea, but that's because I am somewhere between indifferent and supportive of people's right to drink coffee and tea. I do know friends who are troubled by the fact that Marriott hotels offer pay-per-view pornography, but it just doesn't bother me any. Abortion, on the other hand, bothers me quite a bit. I will go further out of my way not to support an organization that publicly aligns itself with the nation's largest provider thereof.

You come a bit closer with the Dell thing. For one, unlike Pepsi or Marriott hotels, I actually use a dell. For another, I'm a lot less comfortable with what North Korea and China do with their own Dells. Even then, I am still much more comfortable supporting the right of American companies to sell computers to China and North Korea, and with the right of China and North Korea to buy them, than I am of the right to terminate a viable pregnancy.

At any rate, we're dealing with more than connections and interrelated webs. This is a company that has chosen to publicly associate itself with an entity whose central tenants (or at least "alternate" tenants, if you insist) is antithetical to my own viewpoints. They have a right to do so, and I have a right to associate myself with organizations that do not. I'm under no mistaken impression that Komen is going to miss my dollars, or the dollars of my family members. I'm mostly thinking about how I would feel putting on the T-shirt and participating in the race, knowing what they do with the dollars I give them and identifying myself as a supporter thereof.

If you think that's extreme, then I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. At the same time, and as you've noticed, there aren't a lot of people here who seem to share that opinion. If you find yourself on the fringe of the range of opinions, maybe it's time to reevaluate whose opinion is the extreme one?

[All-American]

I want to add another piece of data that I've used as part of why I feel the way I feel in this particular case. I saw it on the web the other day and it surprised me.



AA, you mentioned the fact that Planned Parenthood is essentially the poster child for abortion, that there are news articles, etc. How much of that publicity about Planned Parenthood is provided by anti-abortion critics? How often have you seen Planned Parenthood employees and supporters standing in front of churches arguing in favor of abortion? From my view and experience, Planned Parenthood goes about their advocacy and services in a dignified, quiet way. I lived two doors down from the PP clinic when I first moved to Raleigh and they were a quiet member of the neighborhood. To suggest that their the poster child or flag bearer of abortions is not a representation of their message, it's a representation of their opponents' message. Fine, we may not agree on the question of donations, that's okay, but are you willing to accept that your view of Planned Parenthood is colored by the efforts of their opponents, not by them or their actions directly?

On my mission I hated it when investigators clung to stereotypes of the church that had been given to them by people who were clearly opponents of the church. You know how those Spaniards can be -- nothing would/could convince them that the negative descriptions of our church weren't accurate.

No, I think Planned Parenthood is more than happy to be waiving the banner for the pro-choice movement. In fact, here is the Planned Parenthood President, literally waiving the banner for the pro-choice movement (well, a sign):



[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood"]Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, is the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and one of its larger members. PPFA is a non-profit organization providing reproductive health and maternal and child health services. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. (PPAF) is a related organization which lobbies for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and access to affordable health care in the United States.

There's no getting around the fact that they are a major proponent, and even among the principal proponents, of the right to abortion. And nobody does more of it than they do.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/hea...rtion-4260.asp

[Tim]

Okay. I assume that you're answering the other question yes as well, correct? You also think that it would be extreme to stop donating to Komen if they stopped donating to Planned Parenthood, yes? (Thus far, you've only said that you would react if somebody took that position here. You've not said how you would react.)

It matters that I'm getting yes and no answers to the questions, by the way. I'm not just being obstinate. I'm being careful not to attribute to you a position you aren't actually taking.

Yes, if someone stopped donating to Komen because they stopped donating to PP, I'd find that extreme as well. How is that not obvious?

I think we've seen in the last couple of days, though, that the scenario you imply isn't applicable in the real world -- people who care about fighting cancer probably wouldn't stop donating to Komen if Komen stopped donating to PP. Their donations didn't bottom out the day they said they were actually continuing with PP.

If you think that's extreme, then I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. At the same time, and as you've noticed, there aren't a lot of people here who seem to share that opinion. If you find yourself on the fringe of the range of opinions, maybe it's time to reevaluate whose opinion is the extreme one?

If you're suggesting that my position within the range of opinions of mostly Mormon, middle-aged men is equivalent to the range of opinions of the American people, I can't say I'd agree with you on that. I appear to be judging your position against the range of the latter, while you're judging my position against the range of the former.

[Tim]

No, I think Planned Parenthood is more than happy to be waiving the banner for the pro-choice movement.

Sorry, AA, but being favor of freedom and choice, and lobbying in favor of them, is not the same as "waving the flag of abortion."

[All-American]

Yes, if someone stopped donating to Komen because they stopped donating to PP, I'd find that extreme as well. How is that not obvious?

I think we've seen in the last couple of days, though, that the scenario you imply isn't applicable in the real world -- people who care about fighting cancer probably wouldn't stop donating to Komen if Komen stopped donating to PP. Their donations didn't bottom out the day they said they were actually continuing with PP.

You'll have noticed, I hope, that I have never supposed that I thought otherwise. This has little to do with anybody's bottom line, and everything to do with my decision to align myself with causes that I believe in.

If you're suggesting that my position within the range of opinions of mostly Mormon, middle-aged men is equivalent to the range of opinions of the American people, I can't say I'd agree with you on that. I appear to be judging your position against the range of the latter, while you're judging my position against the range of the former.

I hope that it isn't an exclusively middle-aged Mormon male phenomenon to see little difference between donating to an organization that funds Planned Parenthood and buying a Dell that could also sell a computer to China.