Susan G. Komen + Planned Parenthood

[Green Monstah]

So you are basically saying that despite abortions being legal (though evil) you are upset that qualified organizations provide these medical procedures (or as you would put it, murders). You are entitiled to like, dislike or be ambivilant toward whatever organizations or groups of people that you wish. It just seems misplaced to me. Raging against PP or deciding to not donate to a charity that gives a small percentage to PP isn't going to stop abortions. Obviously only the Supreme Court or congress can do that. In fact, PP stops many abortions though its counseling and contraception services.

I would be interested to find out how many abortions PP helps to prevent through counseling pregnant women. I am not even sure how that statistic could be tracked, but PP isn't in the business of talking pregnant women onto having an abortion; however, it does provide a safe place for women to have an abortion once they have decided to do so.

I've not made the claim that it will. I hate to use extreme examples, but hopefully it will clarify my point. Most of my non-tithing charitable contributions goes to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Let's say that CFF decided to provide a small chapter of the National Alliance (a neo-nazi organization) a small grant because that chapter started an initiative to test all newborns in their area for cystic fibrosis. I would refuse to donate another dime to CFF until this ceased because, notwithstanding the fact that (a) the National Alliance is doing good by testing kids) and (b) my refusal to donate will in no way impede the neo-Nazi movement or agenda. It's purely a matter of principle. I'm sure there are holes in the analogy, but that's why I (can't speak for AA) think it's perfectly acceptable to allocate your resources elsewhere, even if it has no effect. At the very least, it's not an extreme position.

[Tim]

I've not made the claim that it will. I hate to use extreme examples, but hopefully it will clarify my point. Most of my non-tithing charitable contributions goes to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Let's say that CFF decided to provide a small chapter of the National Alliance (a neo-nazi organization) a small grant because that chapter started an initiative to test all newborns in their area for cystic fibrosis. I would refuse to donate another dime to CFF until this ceased because, notwithstanding the fact that (a) the National Alliance is doing good by testing kids) and (b) my refusal to donate will in no way impede the neo-Nazi movement or agenda. It's purely a matter of principle. I'm sure there are holes in the analogy, but that's why I (can't speak for AA) think it's perfectly acceptable to allocate your resources elsewhere, even if it has no effect. At the very least, it's not an extreme position.

At the very least, it suggests that you're more interested in philosophies than in real world needs. Removing support for Komen because they donate money to PP to perform breast exams is an implicit suggestion that you only care about fighting cancer under certain terms. Removing support for Komen in this case suggests that the desire to fight breast cancer is nothing more than lip service. For someone as moderate and well-rounded as AA, I'd call that extreme.

[All-American]

At the very least, it suggests that you're more interested in philosophies than in real world needs. Removing support for Komen because they donate money to PP to perform breast exams is an implicit suggestion that you only care about fighting cancer under certain terms. Removing support for Komen in this case suggests that the desire to fight breast cancer is nothing more than lip service. For someone as moderate and well-rounded as AA, I'd call that extreme.

What if we took the money we would have donated to Komen and donated it instead to a cancer research institution that DIDN'T also support Planned Parenthood? The Huntsman Cancer Institute, for example, comes to mind.

[Tim]

What if we took the money we would have donated to Komen and donated it instead to a cancer research institution that DIDN'T also support Planned Parenthood?

I wouldn't wager that there are many cancer research institutions opposed to clinics that provide young low-income women free cancer screening exams.

[All-American]

I wouldn't wager that there are many cancer research institutions opposed to clinics that provide young low-income women free cancer screening exams.

Well, whatever that number is, at least that many, minus one, are also not funding the nation's largest provider of abortions. If that's too extreme for you, then I regret that I won't have your vote whenever it is I get around to running for a public office.

[Green Monstah]

At the very least, it suggests that you're more interested in philosophies than in real world needs. Removing support for Komen because they donate money to PP to perform breast exams is an implicit suggestion that you only care about fighting cancer under certain terms. Removing support for Komen in this case suggests that the desire to fight breast cancer is nothing more than lip service. For someone as moderate and well-rounded as AA, I'd call that extreme.

I'd say it's explicit. I'd also say there's nothing wrong with it (as my analogy [failed to?] illustrate[s]).

[Green Monstah]

I wouldn't wager that there are many cancer research institutions opposed to clinics that provide young low-income women free cancer screening exams.

That's clearly not the issue, and you know it. I'm explicitly in favor of institutions that reach out to poor, young women in order to give free cancer screening exams, so long as the same organization does not also support behavior I find to be morally repugnant.

[Eddie]

At the very least, it suggests that you're more interested in philosophies than in real world needs. Removing support for Komen because they donate money to PP to perform breast exams is an implicit suggestion that you only care about fighting cancer under certain terms. Removing support for Komen in this case suggests that the desire to fight breast cancer is nothing more than lip service. For someone as moderate and well-rounded as AA, I'd call that extreme.

Just out of curiosity, Tim...

Are you equally as upset at the "extreme" reaction of folks who decided to no longer donate to Komen upon hearing that they wouldn't be funding PP? You didn't happen to mention anything about those folks, who if I recall were mentioned in the article.

[Green Monstah]

Just out of curiosity, Tim...

Are you equally as upset at the "extreme" reaction of folks who decided to no longer donate to Komen upon hearing that they wouldn't be funding PP? You didn't happen to mention anything about those folks, who if I recall were mentioned in the article.

BOOM! Roasted.

[Tim]

Just out of curiosity, Tim...

Are you equally as upset at the "extreme" reaction of folks who decided to no longer donate to Komen upon hearing that they wouldn't be funding PP? You didn't happen to mention anything about those folks, who if I recall were mentioned in the article.

I don't know those people nor post with them on CUF. If they posted something as extreme as AA did, I'd have responded.

[Finngirl]

Komen has long been suspect as a worthy foundation. Find me ten women with breast cancer and I'll show you 8-9 who get livid when Komen is mentioned.

All this episode has done is demonstrated for everyone, not just those who have done due diligence, is just how poorly run and unwisely political of an org this is.

If you're an org about boobies, stick to boobies. If you want to take other stands, fess up and take the consequences. And they will.

[myboynoah]

I don't know those people nor post with them on CUF. If they posted something as extreme as AA did, I'd have responded.

Maybe this is the continuation of some other conversation, but I don't understand what was so extreme about AA's comment.

[All-American]

Maybe this is the continuation of some other conversation, but I don't understand what was so extreme about AA's comment.

Neither does AA.

By the way, Tim, that's the second time you've dodged the question directed at you. My wife and I have seriously discussed alternatives to supporting Komen, including donating to the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Do you think the decision to support one cancer research institution instead of another institution that also funds planned parenthood is extreme?

Second, do you consider a decision not to fund Komen because they appeared to be cutting ties with Planned Parenthood extreme, as well?

Direct answers, please.

[TripletDaddy]

There seems to be one person espousing an extreme and somewhat hypocritical stance in this thread, but I don't see A-A as that guy.

Sometimes less is more when sharing opinions.

[Tim]

Neither does AA.

By the way, Tim, that's the second time you've dodged the question directed at you. My wife and I have seriously discussed alternatives to supporting Komen, including donating to the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Do you think the decision to support one cancer research institution instead of another institution that also funds planned parenthood is extreme?

I answered this question with my own back to you. Are you planning to review the financials of every firm you donate to see who they donate to? Is that the type of analysis you're going to do? That's a direct response to your question. I'm suggesting DIRECTLY that you're unlikely to find a cancer research organization that would admit to being opposed to any form of low-income cancer screening clinics.

Second, do you consider a decision not to fund Komen because they appeared to be cutting ties with Planned Parenthood extreme, as well?

I answered this by suggesting that I haven't seen anyone on this board bring that position, and if I did, I'd respond to it equally. Is there anyone on this board espousing that position?

Direct answers, please.

Don't be a dick. I'm allowed to share my opinion.