Did Komen outfox the Left?
2/4, 7a: HT to Kel for spotting this on the Daily Kos…
The apology was nothing more than an attempt to control the damage done to the Komen brand, but the traditional media nonetheless did the work for the foundation by reporting it as a reversal of the Komen Foundation’s decision.
But it’s not.
2/3, 4:02p: Two thoughts as I start this post:
1) My source inside Komen has dried up. Don’t know for how long. Maybe forever. I’m now winging it.
2) Because we do not yet know whether Komen actually did or didn’t capitulate to Planned Parenthood, pro-lifers should again withhold donations, IMO. I might even try to get my money back. It may be a year before we find out – when Komen issues new grants or reissues old ones – although it may be sooner. I’ve read of one Komen affiliate offering a grant to a local Planned Parenthood that never even got one before. That’s how crazy this situation has gotten.
Nevertheless, the initial exhilaration on the Left of a win over the evil breast cancer foundation is subsiding. Suspicious minds are having second thoughts, coming to the same conclusion I did.
At least one Komen board member agrees Komen did not say what the Left thought it said. From the Washington Post, which got a quote from John Raffaelli:
I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants – a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen.
From Mother Jones:
Given what Komen officials have said about their new standards requiring direct services, Friday’s letter leaves one big question—whether Planned Parenthood meets Komen’s criteria for future grants—still unresolved.
From Will Neville at RH Reality Check:
The Komen Foundation’s statement says that it “will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.” And that’s where we hit the real problem. From the beginning, the Foundation has been clear that no current grants will be affected. As such, this is NOT a reversal of any kind.
Planned Parenthood will remain “eligible” for future grants, but the Komen Foundation has made no commitment to continue funding or to preserve its relationship with Planned Parenthood in years to come….
Whether the Komen Foundation’s statement dos in fact signal a reversal of its policy towards Planned Parenthood remains to be seen. It is entirely possible that they intend to fund Planned Parenthood cancer screening services in the future, and we hope they do. It is equally possible that this is simply a public relations move designed to diffuse a lucrative brand from spiraling out of control – and the Komen Foundation will quietly reject future grant proposals from Planned Parenthood once they are out of the media spotlight.
From the Huffington Post:
To be clear, Komen’s apology is not a promise to renew Planned Parenthood grants. It’s a promise to “continue to fund existing grants” to the organization – which it was already planning on doing – and to make it eligible for future grants. At no point in the press release does Brinker promise that Komen will renew grants to Planned Parenthood.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I don’t know Jill, in the conversations I was having since Tuesday, we all though the other shoe was going to drop and Komen would reverse.
We’ve all (ESPECIALLY here in South Dakota) seen what the Planned Parenthood bully mob can do. Lying and obfuscating is their natural behavior. When you know you have the United States President and Senate firmly behind you, as well as the President’s Cabinet, it does not matter what the peons think or feel.
I think Komen is doing their best to make the spotlight go away, but most people feel as I do; they will not be giving to Komen – and this is on both sides of the issue. Pro-aborts will not hand over their monies either if FB is any indication. Komen needs to make a firm stand against partnering with Planned Parenthood, weather the storm and stick to it, and that will free up reasonable people, who believe all life is important and worthy, to begin giving to them again.
As it is, they will not be able to continue because they don’t have a donor base.
Happy groundhogs day everyone
I would invite you to consider this: What good is being so nuanced and clever that nobody can figure out how to spin a statement of apology and reversal of the de-funding?
Komen is silent about the connection between the pill, abortion and breast cancer.
Planned Parenthood is a major contributor to causes of breast cancer.
We don’t want Komen giving money to Planned Parenthood under any circumstances. Especially in light of the fact that they do not have the fortitude to tell women the pill and abortions are contributing to cancer. There are other ways to fund mammograms.
The prolife movement needs to get off the Komen bus. It was a good ride around the block but they have driven it back to Planned Parenthood.
Let it be anathema. It is what it is.
It sure seems to me that we pro-lifers have been played. Color me depressed today.
At least now EVERYONE knows that Komen really does give money to PP. No pink ribbons for me – ever. I will find other organizations that are truly helping women fight cancer.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. SGK has lost all credibility with me. I will now donate to the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. As in any organized crime
organization (abortion mafia), once you’re in with them you can never really get out.
i just saw this on the news. komens back in bed with the devil!
Imo, if Komen would have stood firm, they would have come out ahead in the end. Even amidst the flurry of criticism they were getting, in addition to the “unlike Komen” campaign, the “likes” on their page were going up– a testament to pro-lifers, in general– and there was real evidence that beyond the initial flurry of negative criticism that there were more supportive comments of Komen coming from the internet.
But, alas, now we’ll never know for sure how the story would have ended. A shame, really. If there’s a silver lining to all of this, hopefully business/charities/sponsors will reconsider giving to Planned Parenthood in the future, as if you withdraw your money/support at a future date, it could and probably will get you thrown under the bus.
Jill I think you’re straining to see a silver lining….I never trusted them and I trust them less now.
I’m basing my opinion on what I saw between Nancy Brinker, CEO of Komen, and Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC in the interview yesterday. There were definite strong emotions passing between the two, and much that was not said was obvious. It was like old friends who are trying not to let the other go astray and overreact. But, at the end of the interview I was impressed by Brinker’s firmness to Mitchell in explaining how dedicated Komen is to their mission of assisting women with breast cancer, and a firm determination to stay that course, “until the day I die”, as Brinker put it in subsequent statements.
Brinker’s words subsequent to this interview, after she had a taste of the bitterness from PP and the sweetness from Pro Life, were , to me, filled with emotion and love. There will come a time when the Komen movers and shakers, with Brinker at the head of the boardroom, will have to bare their souls and make the final choices on grants based not just on the “policy” but on the commitment they have to the memory of Susan G. Komen. I think the “vote of the dead” is at work here, and the souls in heaven will always hope for the best. That’s what I’m going to do, too, and I know others are doing the same. God is watching us. I will pray for Him to be in that boardroom.
Add the Daily Kos to the list of people who now believe Komen did NOT reverse its decision about Planned Parenthood: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/03/1061450/-Lazy-media-reports-Komen-Foundation-decision-as-reversal-It-isnt?detail=hide
So glad I read this. I was telling my husband this morning I would be calling SGK and donating money SPECIFICALLY because they were getting out of bed with PP.
You’re right, Carol. It was a good ride around the block.
Hip Hip Hooray! The people have spoken, Komen listened and all is well in the world of Women’s Health issues.
Just goes to show you – it’s always something. Or not much at all.
As I said yesterday, congratulations. You blew up Komen.
Yes, Jill, feel free to re-arrange the deck chairs, but the damage has been done. Komen is drawing extreme heat from not only the right, but the left as well. Komen’s brand is irreparably damaged and passing the hat on Sunday won’t fill the funding gap. Komen, like any large foundation, relies on funding from mega-corporations and philanthropies, and they don’t like controversy. Meanwhile, you and your friends are going to try to distance yourselves from the conflagration you started.
You so-called “pro-lifers” are going to have that “victory” laid at your doorstep.
Karen Handel and Cliff Stearns are now fair game for the mainstream media you so thoroughly despise. They will investigate Handel and Stearns. If they find evidence of some collaboration, which in all probability they will, the true pro-life movement will be set back by at least a decade. All because of the actions of a few.
It’s all Red Team-Blue Team with you people, isn’t it? It never occurred to you that there are people out there called “Americans,” who would find this extremely offensive.
Ugh. Man. You people and your life-and-death situations! Can’t we all just let each other go on doing terrible things to one another and mind our own businesses?! 9_9
“Komen is silent about the connection between the pill, abortion and breast cancer”
Because, other than you wish to make it so, there is none. Komen’s right wing connections have been exposed. (Turns out the very partisan Ari Fleischer is involved). The damage, as mp states, has been done.
Sorry for not following closely. Who is Cliff Stearns and how will his association (if there is one) with Karen Handel pose a problem?
Here’s a question: The Komen officials who stepped down in protest, are they re-enlisting?
“Komen’s right wing connections have been exposed. (Turns out the very partisan Ari Fleischer is involved). The damage, as mp states, has been done. “
Komen is a bipartisan group. It has always said it was a bipartisan group. Some people (I mean liberals) don’t really understand the meaning of the word bipartisan.
“Komen is silent about the connection between the pill, abortion and breast cancer”
Because, other than you wish to make it so, there is none. Komen’s right wing connections have been exposed. (Turns out the very partisan Ari Fleischer isinvolved). The damage, as mp states, has been done. ”
I’m sitting in a house in front of a fireplace that I’m sure you never knew existed. Here’s some wisdom we all learn at some point in life. Just because you don’t see it, doesn ‘t mean it isn’t there.
If you do your homework, you find the evidence from the studies. Estrogen feeds cancer. Doctors have stopped recommending taking estrogen for menopausal women because it turns out it causes, you know, cancer.
There’s one thing in your statement CC that I think everyone can now agree with – Komen is neither here nor there and so we have all spit them out of our mouths.
Carol, the proaborts don’t want to look at the pictures of the aborted babies either. They say they are fabricated.
I don’t think it matters to tjhem if abortion kills babies (it does) or that abortion causes cancer (it may). It doesn’t matter. Because the most important thing for a woman to FEEL like a woman is the right to kill her child before she’s born.
well i will donate to cancer research ……just not komen. frauds!
Komen CAN’T blow up. It has to exist, for eternity, to give Planned Parenthood $600,000 per year for breast exams and mammogram referrals. That was Susan G. Komen’s dream.
“From now on, going on a two-day bender and then trying to make it up to everyone after will be called “pulling a Komen”. ;) :P
Some Guy: Komen is a bipartisan group. It has always said it was a bipartisan group. Some people (I mean liberals) don’t really understand the meaning of the word bipartisan.
Okay, so don’t just push the agenda of one faction, and that’s the lesson that was learned the hard way.
Ugh. Man. You people and your life-and-death situations! Can’t we all just let each other go on doing terrible things to one another and mind our own businesses?! 9_9
X. :)
Komen’s position seems so basic and obvious to me. From a donor point of view, it makes sense not to use contributions toward a group or individual under criminal investigation- especially when, in the case of PP, there is an increase in such investigations.
PP true believers aside, this is charitable going 101. Why the rancor? Why not wait for PP to e cleared?
On Jan 20, 2012, war on Christianity was declared by the Obama Administration when Mr Obama and Ms Sebelius ordered all religious institution’s consciences null and void, mandating that contraception & abortion be included in all insurance packages they offer to employees. This decree came just before the annual March for Life, when more than 300,000 mostly young, optimistic Pro Lifers peacefully assembled in Washington,D.C. to protest abortion on the anniversary of the day raw judicial power declared the lives of the unborn expendable.
It may not seem like a possibility to many, but these choices imposed on Americans, all Americans, have had a grinding effect on the rights of charitable persons, rich or poor, left or right, smart or dumb. Possibly the rich have had a change of heart, and wish to somehow atone for mistakes of the past. Possibly,as been recognized by Susan G. Komen Foundation, charity to organizations that represent the reprehensible such as Philly’s Kermit Gosnell would be unwise now or in the foreseeable future. Perhaps the millions who have marched for 39 years, appealing in good faith to all men & women of goodwill, and the 55 million lost, now have been heard. Perhaps the grand illusions of the radical social planners have been exposed as frauds and imposters.
Hardly rearranging deck chairs, there are those who may be willing to sacrifice all to allow women and children to be saved first.
“Okay, so don’t just push the agenda of one faction, and that’s the lesson that was learned the hard way.”
What does that mean?
…No, wait. I know what that means; “don’t do anything the liberal faction would disagree with”. Again, someone(s) doesn’t know the meaning of the word bipartisan.
Anywho, does anyone else find it funny that Planned Parenthood (and it’s supporters) would accuse someone of playing politics and partisanship? Last I checked, Planned Parenthood is essentially a lackey of the Democratic Party (or maybe the Democratic Party is a lackey of Planned Parenthood?), what with all that fundraising, campaigning and endorsing of Democratic candidates they do. But who REALLY cares about that?
Komen’s position seems so basic and obvious to me. From a donor point of view, it makes sense not to use contributions toward a group or individual under criminal investigation- especially when, in the case of PP, there is an increase in such investigations.
PP true believers aside, this is charitable going 101. Why the rancor? Why not wait for PP to e cleared?
MaryAnn, good post. If anything, to the last question, I’d say, “innocent until proven guilty.” That said, I realize that PP has done some things, some places, that are not in line with the specific laws of at least some states, i.e. mandatory notifications, etc., and I fully agree that PP was in the wrong, there.
With the current Komen goings-on, however, it does seem very likely to me that some “partisanship” was involved. Frankly, you go far enough to the “right” or the “left” and you’ll find nutty idealogues, etc., who’ll act out of bounds according to darn near everybody.
Well, you’ll have that.
“Okay, so don’t just push the agenda of one faction, and that’s the lesson that was learned the hard way.”
Some Guy: What does that mean?
…No, wait. I know what that means; “don’t do anything the liberal faction would disagree with”. Again, someone(s) doesn’t know the meaning of the word bipartisan.
Well, it means not pushing the agenda of one faction. For the anti-choice members of Komen to promote action to the extent that evidently happened was seen as wrong by lots of people.
Who knows all of what, exactly, was the motivation of the Komen board, as they made that original, fateful decision? I’m sure it was a mixture of things. But having the anti-choicers hold sway is hardly “bipartisan.”
Hal: Happy groundhogs day everyone.
Back at ya, Holmes.
Ready to open the pod bay doors yet? ;)
#1. I never ever knew that Planned Parenthood offered free mammograms!
#2. Who would ever trust Planned Parenthood with allotted funds to begin with.
#3. Komen has now lost so many supporters with this juicy morsel of information that most of us had no clue about.
#4. I had planned to walk for a cure and now I won’t be doing that walk.
#5. Save a women’s life by early detection and let’s support an abortion mill to offer a service few new was available? Waste!
Yo, Mary, how about opening the pod bay doors? ;)
“Well, it means not pushing the agenda of one faction. For the anti-choice members of Komen to promote action to the extent that evidently happened was seen as wrong by lots of people.”
So let me make sure I understand. Bipartisan, according to you, means not pushing the agenda on one faction. You also, apparently, believe that by taking away grants from Planned Parenthood, the anti-choice faction was pushing an agenda on the pro-choice faction. Well, in the same vein, the pro-choice faction of Komen is pushing an agenda on the pro-life faction by granting funds to Planned Parenthood. And since Komen is a bipartisan organization (much to the consternation of some), then that is wrong and should not be allowed, meaning no funds should go to Planned Parenthood.
…But, oh wait. That can’t be done, because then that would mean the anti-choice faction is pushing an agenda on the pro-choice faction. What a predicament this is! So what to do? Well, obviously, according to you, the correct thing to do is to fund Planned Parenthood. And your definition of bipartisan(ship)? Thrown to the wind, evidently.
(Again I point out that liberals tend not to understand the definition of the word ‘bipartisan’ or ‘bipartisanship’, as it generally transforms to “anything we agree with”.)
MP! You’re kidding, right? You know that this agreement was hammered out in December between Planned Parenthood and Komen, but Planned Parenthood decided to break the agreement to keep it low key and under the radar, and chose to use scorched earth techniques against Komen PRIMARILY as a fundraiser. They are evil to the core, disingenuous and bullies. I can’t believe you are trying to put this debacle on Jill and #prolifers. The entire fracas was manufactured by Planned Parenthood for their own gain. Sheesh. Spit out the Kool-Aid.
Some Guy: (Again I point out that liberals tend not to understand the definition of the word ‘bipartisan’ or ‘bipartisanship’, as it generally transforms to “anything we agree with”.)
Well, the same can be said for conservatives, but I’ve bought stock in central Florida computer-sellers, so no worries here. ;)
____
So let me make sure I understand. Bipartisan, according to you, means not pushing the agenda on one faction. You also, apparently, believe that by taking away grants from Planned Parenthood, the anti-choice faction was pushing an agenda on the pro-choice faction. Well, in the same vein, the pro-choice faction of Komen is pushing an agenda on the pro-life faction by granting funds to Planned Parenthood. And since Komen is a bipartisan organization (much to the consternation of some), then that is wrong and should not be allowed, meaning no funds should go to Planned Parenthood.
…But, oh wait. That can’t be done, because then that would mean the anti-choice faction is pushing an agenda on the pro-choice faction. What a predicament this is! So what to do? Well, obviously, according to you, the correct thing to do is to fund Planned Parenthood. And your definition of bipartisan(ship)? Thrown to the wind, evidently.
No, not “on one faction,” but rather “of one faction,” and that sure looks like what the “new hires” and/or anti-choicers of Komen were doing.
Really not saying this is (still) any huge deal, but doggoneit – it sure looks pretty obvious to a lot of people.
Doug? Pod bay doors?
“MP! You’re kidding, right? You know that this agreement was hammered out in December between Planned Parenthood and Komen …”
What agreement?
I can find no authoritative reference to an agreement.
Mary. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkyUMmNl4hk
Written by the Unconquerable Arthur C. Clarke, directed by the Immortal Stanley Kubrick.
PP is NOT under a criminal investigation but rather a political investigation. Any member of Congress can start a political investigation with or without anything to investigate or any evidence at hand. Any of us could be subject to such an investigation. (The name “McCarthy” comes to mind….)
Some guy, Komen wasn’t viewed as a bipartisan organization; it was viewed as a nonpartisan organization.
There is a huge difference.
Jane, that too is a good point, and it follows that certain Komen personnel advocating a partisan, versus a bipartisan approach, would change the deal. As we’ve seen, it happened.
SGK has been carrying PP around for so long,,,,this was a good step in the right direction but it is going take a while to get rid of the stink.
Not fox-like., I’d say more like a weasel.
Doug,
I didn’t have to follow your link. You should worry about the pod bay door that was opened in 1973. A third of our babies have been pushed out since. Not by HAL, but by their mothers and their accomplices.
Your bemusement is ill-placed.
Hans-
From what I’ve heard, at least one WAS pushed out by Hal.
I didn’t have to follow your link.
Hans, then you can guide Mary into the glorious world of greater understanding.
____
You should worry about the pod bay door that was opened in 1973. A third of our babies have been pushed out since. Not by HAL, but by their mothers and their accomplices.
Your bemusement is ill-placed.
So you say, based on your feeling that it’s better than letting women, themselves, decide whether to continue or end their own pregnancies.
Yet that’s not really my source of “bemusement,” here. It’s that at the bottom line, no matter the outcome of this Komen deal – I never felt it was the “end-all” of anything, and I said as much before the latest reversal in the Komen position occurred. If anything, it’s people hooting and hollering, whining and moaning, shaking their heads and wringing their hands…
To be fair, that applies to pro-choicers as well as pro-lifers. I have seen numerous other “issues” arise, within the context of the abortion debate, without any really meaningful effect, especially in the long run.
It’s not that the pod bay door was opened in 1973, it’s that before that, and since, we don’t really need to try and compel women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their will, any more than we need to try and compel women with wanted pregnancies to end them.
I agree with Jill. You have to read both Komen statements and the second one very carefully and compare them. It does not appear that the new CRITERIA for giving grants that they announced on the first day has been pulled back. ALSO BE AWARE THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS INDEED UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN KANSAS. They are charged with misdeomeanors. The felonies they were charged with were withdrawn but ONLY because the evidence needed by prosecutors was discovered destroyed or missing, not once but twice. That missing/shredded evidence is now itself being investigated. The misdeomeanor case, which is about purposely underestimating gestational age related to late-term abortions is going back to court towards the end of February in Johnson County, Kansas–on the Kansas side of Kansas City.
This generation will be the one which will see the end of abortion.
The hunter’s trap doesn’t trap the rabbit, the rabbit traps the rabbit.
There’s no trap so secure as the one we set for ourselves.
Only One Way out.
ALSO BE AWARE THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS INDEED UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN KANSAS.
Penn State University, the recipient of a 5-year, $7.5 million Komen grant is also under investigation by local, state and federal officials yet, in their December 16, 2011 memo to affiliates, Komen CEO Thompson makes no mention of suspending Penn State under the revised funding criteria, only Planned Parenthood.
Komen has yet to respond to press inquiries concerning what appears to be an inconsistent application of the criteria.
Regarding statement by mp: Neither of Komen’s offical statements (see their news page) mentioned Planned Parenthood OR Penn State. Planned Parenthood is the one who mentioned Planned Parenthood.
Doug,
If you were to wash ashore on a deserted (except for myself) island, I would be compelled to share food and water with you even if there was no authority to punish me. I would be compelled by being human. Especially if I knew there would be rescue in seven months.
Pregnancy is not as dire as that scenario. And yes, that is easy for me to say. But I’m prejudiced, you see. I owe my existence to one.
Perhaps you should consider a little more awe and respect to this aspect of nature that benefitted you as well.
Regarding statement by mp: Neither of Komen’s offical statements (see their news page) mentioned Planned Parenthood OR Penn State. Planned Parenthood is the one who mentioned Planned Parenthood.
Incorrect. Komen’s memo to affiliates, dated December 16, 2011 specifically mentions the termination of Planned Parenthood funding and also provides a FAQ on how to deal with questions concerning the termination.
OK, I didn’t see that, but why would that mean it wouldn’t apply to Penn State as well? Have they mentioned it? Is it because it went to a partiular program at Penn State and since that program isn’t under investigation. I mean that they would argue that an entity under investigation that had a bunch of different divisions wouldn’t disqualify that particular division? Not saying I agree with that. Just wondering.
OK, I didn’t see that, but why would that mean it wouldn’t apply to Penn State as well?
Precisely my point. If Planned Parenthood failed to meet the criteria, Penn State also failed to meet it, yet Planned Parenthood was terminated, but Penn State was not.
Also, Planned Parenthood was specifically cited in the memo, Penn State was not.
Here are the documents:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/an-inside-look-at-susan-g-komen-for-the-cures-spin-machine/252488/
Unfortunately, Jill Stanek’s claim that Planned Parenthood was the first to reveal the termination of their contract doesn’t hold water in light of these documents.
Komen headquarters published the news to their entire network on December 16, even authorizing affiliates to discuss the information with donors.
Is it because it went to a partiular program at Penn State and since that program isn’t under investigation. I mean that they would argue that an entity under investigation that had a bunch of different divisions wouldn’t disqualify that particular division? Not saying I agree with that. Just wondering.
That remains to be answered. Komen’s policy should have addressed those types of questions, but it’s unclear as to whether they did.
Additionally, Komen has failed to respond to requests for clarification.
There is an additional “something” that creates a problem for Komen and the “something” was written by Jill Stanek.
In her February 2, 2012 piece entitled “The inside story on Komen’s split from Planned Parenthood” she writes:
People are speculating whether SGK will begin funding PP again if the Stearns’ investigation goes nowhere. The answer is no. Two reasons, according to my source. First, PP burned a bridge by breaking the story. Second, note SGK’s new criteria that stipulates it will give no grant money to “organizations that are under local, state or federal investigations.” Aside from the federal investigation, Planned Parenthood is currently being investigated in several states. Those will never end. There will always be another. SGK does not plan to fund PP ever again.
As to the first point, namely that Planned Parenthood “broke” the story, the Komen documents I linked to above clearly show that to be false. Komen’s Thompson published the decision from sea to shining sea on December 16, even authorizing affiliates to discuss the talking points with donors and constituents.
As to the second point, “SGK does not plan to fund PP ever again,” Stanek’s source makes it clear that the funding criteria was designed with Planned Parenthood in mind. This is supported by the fact that the December 16 document specifically addresses the termination of Planned Parenthood and only Planned Parenthood, to the exclusion of all other possible candidates for termination. That’s a problem, a very big problem, which is why Jill Stanek is at least partially responsible for creating the perception that Komen did a hit job on Planned Parenthood.
Note:
In the above comment, there should be a paragraph break at “As to the first point … ”
The Jill Stanek quotation is italicized.
The Dec. memo said PP “in particular” if memory serves, which doesn’t rule others out. Perhaps they sensed PP would have the biggest reaction. Duh. And all over 5% of their manual breast exam money. Perhaps their real fear is that Komen might be reading the abortion/breast cancer research, which would explain the huge PP much over-reaction better, at least to me. Plus did that Atlantic reporter qualify as one of those “donors” Komen told their affiliates they could talk to about this in Dec.? This is my initial reaction to what you’ve said. It’s late. I’ll look in the morning.
The Dec. memo said PP “in particular” if memory serves, which doesn’t rule others out.
No, it doesn’t, but the December 16 memo very clearly demonstrates, in mentioning them by name, that Planned Parenthood was very much on Komen’s mind when they formulated their “policy.”
Perhaps they sensed PP would have the biggest reaction.
Possibly, but I could also ask why they wouldn’t sense that a funding decision affecting Penn State might generate a huge reaction. College football, in some parts of our great nation, is more important than even “pro-life” issues. The denial of a grant due to Penn’s ongoing investigation could be counted upon to generate a huge controversy.
Perhaps their real fear is that Komen might be reading the abortion/breast cancer research, which would explain the huge PP much over-reaction better, at least to me.
The “over-reaction” was not Planned Parenthood reacting, it was Americans reacting.
Plus did that Atlantic reporter qualify as one of those “donors” Komen told their affiliates they could talk to about this in Dec.?
As I said, the December 16 talking points memo makes it clear that the material was broadcast from sea to shining sea. Anyone could have been the source for the January 31 Associated Press “exclusive,” which Stanek offers as “proof” that Planned Parenthood “broke” the story. Sorry, but it isn’t there, not even remotely, and the AP article doesn’t provide the source for the information.
Stanek has no way of proving that Planned Parenthood leaked the story but, even if she does, it doesn’t matter. Komen broadcast the news on December 16 and it clearly didn’t concern them whether the story was leaked, otherwise they would have instructed their affiliates to embargo its release. They did the opposite by telling their affiliates they were free to discuss the information with their “donors and constituents.”
Prediction:
This thread will roll off the front page as fast as I can say “Gotcha!”
“Some guy, Komen wasn’t viewed as a bipartisan organization; it was viewed as anonpartisan organization.”
By whom?
(Pro-choicers, of course, though they really don’t understand the meaning of that word.)
Planned Parenthood is also a nonpartisan organization (allegedly), but they constantly fundraise for and donate to Democratic candidates. How’s that work?
“There is a huge difference.”
Not in the mind of pro-choicers. There is no way Komen could have taken away funds from Planned Parenthood without the left coming out and crying bloody murder.
There is no way Komen could have taken away funds from Planned Parenthood without the left coming out and crying bloody murder.
Wrong. It could have been done, but it wasn’t managed properly.
You see, your friends on the extreme right left behind too many fingerprints and smoking guns. Now, if they’d prepared a list of, let’s say, two dozen different organizations they were terminating, and had Planned Parenthood been one of the organizations on the list, then it would have been “too bad, so sad.”
But, they didn’t do that. No, they singled out Planned Parenthood and blew their “left” foot off. Then they blew their “right” foot off when they reversed their decision. Now, Komen is walking on stumps. They’ve got neither the right, nor the left.
Then, to finish it all off, Jill Stanek writes a January 31 piece and describes how her source within SGK swore that “SGK does not plan to fund PP ever again.”
What did you expect the “left” to do, anyway, say “Thank you?”
And what did you expect those Americans who are neither “left” nor “right” to think or do?
Remain silent?
MP, interesting. But as stated at the top of that piece, those were “internal documents.” Had they been made public, this would have made the news December 16. To corroborate that this was internal – not public – information, from the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/us/uproar-as-komen-foundation-cuts-money-to-planned-parenthood.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&src=twr):
One of the two Planned Parenthood affiliates that will receive money from Komen for 2012 is Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties in California. Stephanie Kight, senior vice president of that affiliate, said that in mid-December, her local Komen affiliate called and asked for the 2012 grant application to be submitted that day. Ms. Kight complied and believes that the reason for the rush was to get the grant financed before the new rules went into effect.
Also read in the Daily Kos, “Komen upset that Planned Parenthood went public.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/03/1061392/-Komen-upset-that-Planned-Parenthood-went-public
“Planned Parenthood is also a nonpartisan organization (allegedly), but they constantly fundraise for and donate to Democratic candidates. How’s that work?”
Planned Parenthood fundraises for and endorses pro-choice candidates, most of whom happen to be Democratic, much the same way that the NRA fundraises for and endorses pro-gun candidates, most of whom happen to be Republican. It’s not Planned Parenthood’s fault that it’s almost impossible for a pro-choice Republican to be elected in many parts of the country.
Hans Re 1;28am (what are doing up at that ungodly hour??)
Your analogy about the desert island is one of the best I’ve read for a long time.
Though I can imagine all our proabort friends on this thread eyeing their island-mate suspiciously and saying, “There’s only a finite amount of food and its MINE. You can’t have ANY! I must survive andd you must die! Oh well, sucks to be you!”
If Congress had been doing its job, we wouldn’t have had widespread abortion or the rise in breast cancer that accompanied it. We wouldn’t have had “Roe” in the first place. The Judicial Branch of Government doesn’t write law, it rules on laws that exist as to their Constitutionality. As in every other genocide imposed on a conquered and defeated people, the oppressors can sit back and say, “Isn’t it awful; they’re killing themselves!”
A little story: The Kapos in concentration camps did the bidding of the Nazi Commandant. The Kapos are prisoners that get more food and better treatment by the Nazis for beating on fellow prisoners. One day, Kapo K has a change of heart and secretly stops beating on the prisoners. The Commandant gets wind of this and secretly sends word via one of the other Kapos that Kapo K will be thrown in with the other prisoners if she refuses to beat on the prisoners. The Commandant is hoping this will intimidate Kapo K, because without the complicity of all the Kapos, he will have to send in his uniformed Nazis to impose punishment in the barracks, as well as maintain the killing of the prisoners in the gas chambers. The Commandant is hoping that all the other Kapos won’t find out about Kapo K and have a change of heart like her. But the rumor is out, and word is spreading that soon all the Kapos will stop beating on prisoners.
Of course, we know how the story ends; the Allies defeat the Nazis and expose the whole concentration camp system to the whole world, we get the Nuremberg Trials, and Nazi doctors are charged with “Crimes Against Humanity,” found guilty, and hanged. And the world says “Never again.”
Though I can imagine all our proabort friends on this thread eyeing their island-mate suspiciously and saying, “There’s only a finite amount of food and its MINE. You can’t have ANY! I must survive and you must die! Oh well, sucks to be you!”
Courtnay, oh brother…. :) You’re addressing a conscious person with sensation and emotion, there, somebody who is not inside the body of another person. Quite a difference. The society on the desert island would probably share fairly equally (to a point, anyway). The unborn are not in society in that same way, nor nearly as similar as the other members of society, and thus we have the abortion debate as we do.
1. Nonsense.
2. That’s your opinion.
3. It’s all how you define “human.”
Not doing this with you today Doug.
No, it’s not “nonsense.” If the unborn were not inside the body of a person, if they were conscious, had their own will, their own volition, emotions, etc., then the abortion debate as we have it would not exist. Of course opinion is involved – that’s what morality is. It’s not the definition of “human” that is in question.
If you were to wash ashore on a deserted (except for myself) island, I would be compelled to share food and water with you even if there was no authority to punish me. I would be compelled by being human. Especially if I knew there would be rescue in seven months.
Pregnancy is not as dire as that scenario. And yes, that is easy for me to say. But I’m prejudiced, you see. I owe my existence to one.
Perhaps you should consider a little more awe and respect to this aspect of nature that benefitted you as well.
Hans, I do have awe and respect to the aspects of nature – they are fascinating. However, had my mom had an abortion, then there never would have been a “me” to know or care about anything. Same for you, same for everybody.
We don’t know how dire being on the deserted island would be. Look at how well the folks on ‘Gilligan’s Island’ did…. I don’t see us, as a society, having a compelling need to tell pregnant women how dire or not dire their situation is.
As far as you sharing water and food, that’s not because “you are human.” That’s your conscious “shoulds” and “should nots” at work.
“Wrong. It could have been done, but it wasn’t managed properly.”
Wrong. It wouldn’t have mattered how it was handled. Planned Parenthood is the new MC Hammer; you can’t touch it.
“You see, your friends on the extreme right left behind too many fingerprints and smoking guns. Now, if they’d prepared a list of, let’s say, two dozen different organizations they were terminating, and had Planned Parenthood been one of the organizations on the list, then it would have been “too bad, so sad.”
Why should they have to? Since when is Planned Parenthood entitled to funds? Generally when one organization cuts off funding to another one, the organization who loses the funding thanks the other for their partnership. But no. Planned Parenthood rallied it’s allies, stamped it’s foot and proceeded to drag its former friend through the proverbial mud. The only thing missing from this whole saga was a letter from Planned Parenthood to Komen telling them to pay up or suffer a “misfortunate” accident. Racketeering is alive and well.
“But, they didn’t do that. No, they singled out Planned Parenthood and blew their “left” foot off. Then they blew their “right” foot off when they reversed their decision. Now, Komen is walking on stumps. They’ve got neither the right, nor the left.”
They should have stuck with their original decision. So what if they “singled Planned Parenthood out”? It was their money. I didn’t know Planned Parenthood was entitled to their money. I was totally unaware that giving money to someone once was a life commitment. If that’s the case, then I’ve missed out on about 12 years worth of checks from numerous employers. I mean, sure I don’t work for them anymore but if you get a check once, you get a check for life, right?
“Then, to finish it all off, Jill Stanek writes a January 31 piece and describes how her source within SGK swore that “SGK does not plan to fund PP ever again.””
Which they very well may stick to, though I doubt it unless they find some intestinal fortitude overnight.
“What did you expect the “left” to do, anyway, say “Thank you?””
Yes? That’s what normal organizations tend to do.
“And what did you expect those Americans who are neither “left” nor “right” to think or do?
Remain silent?”
Yes? Komen can do whatever it wants with it’s own money. But apparently the way it works now is that your money is your money so long as Planned Parenthood doesn’t want it; then it’s their money.
But to nip this in the bud again, go look at where the “outrage” is being generated and by whom. Again, I’m not one to claim a “liberal bias”, but just go look at all the Komen related material on the web and see exactly where the “outrage” is coming from. It’s 99.9999999998% from the liberal blogosphere/MSM.
Oh, and I see you didn’t answer my question as to how Planned Parenthood can get away with aligning itself with the Democratic Party yet maintain its status as nonprofit. But that would require some intellectual honesty on your part, and I doubt you’re capable of it.
Komen made a dumb mistake, and the only people who don’t see that are those who would push their own, quite partisan agenda. It’s not just the “liberals,” it’s anybody with sense.
“Why should they have to?”
Because SGK is no more entitled to a favorable media response and continued donations from people who disagree with the way it has handled this mess than Planned Parenthood is to SGK funding in the first place?
“Yes? That’s what normal organizations tend to do.”
So is Planned Parenthood guilty of “racketeering” or simply not being very gracious? There is a difference, believe it or not.
Komen messed up, and just about everybody sees it. The only ones that don’t are those who would push their own very partisan agenda. It’s not just “liberals” who see it, it’s anybody with sense.
However, had my mom had an abortion, then there never would have been a “me” to know or care about anything.
Right. Because she would have chosen to pay to have your life taken. Would the world be a better place without you in it, Doug?
Edit: My post should have said “nonpartisan” instead of “nonprofit”. Anyway:
“Because SGK is no more entitled to a favorable media response and continued donations from people who disagree with the way it has handled this mess than Planned Parenthood is to SGK funding in the first place?”
That doesn’t begin explain why SGK has to give Planned Parenthood any money or why Planned Parenthood is entitled to continued funding from SGK. No one said you had to continue to donate to SGK; you can do whatever you want with your money. However, there were plenty who held that SGK had to donate to Planned Parenthood. See the difference/problem there? Or, more importantly, will you see the difference?
“So is Planned Parenthood guilty of “racketeering” or simply not being very gracious? There is a difference, believe it or not.”
”Give me your money or else we’re going to launch a campaign against you!” is neither gracious and pretty close to racketeering. As I said, the only thing missing was a letter stating Komen better pony up “or else”.
“Komen made a dumb mistake, and the only people who don’t see that are those who would push their own, quite partisan agenda. It’s not just the “liberals,” it’s anybody with sense.”
Interesting. Speaking of partisanship, did you know that the vast majority of the outcry was coming from the liberal blogosphere or news organizations which have a liberal tilt? Or that the organization complaining (Planned Parenthood) about someone playing politics actually donates and fundraises for the Democratic Party? It’s important to note, and I’ll continue noting it for as long as some of you keep ignoring it. Apparently, these objections some of y’all are using only work one way.
But, anyway, the lesson here? Don’t climb into bed with Planned Parenthood. I can’t imagine too many sponsors jumping at the thought of partnering with Planned Parenthood in the future, as the point when you stop donating to them, they release the proverbial hounds on you.
Can women receive affordable medical assistance in the US with the cultural and political factors as they exist today? Big question with lots of factors involved.
Better question: Would women and men be better served by the culture if abortion and contraception (but I repeat myself) were allowed to be left to the States to legislate?
If you go to Planned Parenthood’s website, you will see personal testimonies of women, thanking Planned Parenthood for helping them with their gynocological needs. The unspoken factor behind these testimonies is the availability made to these women by PP of an abortion. Opinion: the killing of children Is an unacceptable form of health care; fertility is not a disease. Women and men would be better served by physicians who don’t treat fertility as a disease.
Opinion: Roe has been an unmitigated disaster, as has sex education in schools, no-fault divorce, the rise of the homosexual political consortium, the welfare state, pornography, and political correctness speech laws, All these factors have affected *families*. The cure for all these maladies within the culture is to return to a normal, healthy set of behaviors within families, not by forcing American families to accept, pay for and enable these sicknesses. Family doctors who treat fertility as a disease are themselves a disease on families, and are faux family doctors.
Susan G. Komen should confine their charity to family doctors who treat fertility as normal and healthy, not a disease. After all, Komen was founded to fight a disease. Komen has been enabling, not fighting disease by assisting Planned Parenthood. Komen made a dumb mistake. Roe was a dumb mistake. Believing it was a Constitutional right was a dumb mistake. America has been dumbed-down. Time to smarten up.
“However, there were plenty who held that SGK had to donate to Planned Parenthood.”
What does that even mean? You make no sense. Nobody can force SGK to donate anything to anyone, any more than I can “hold” that you must send me a check for $1000 forthwith. Maybe there are a lot of people who think SGK should continue to donate money to Planned Parenthood, given the fact that the nominal goals of each organization run parallel and PP can put that money to good use. So what? They have a right to that belief, and they have a right to mobilize and let other people know that they feel that way. You’re making a groundswell of peaceful (and mostly online, with the locus being SGK’s Facebook page) activism out to be something sinister like a government official threatening an IRS audit if SGK doesn’t play ball.
“Give me your money or else we’re going to launch a campaign against you!” is neither gracious and pretty close to racketeering.”
A “campaign”? Really? Where? You’re apparently using an impossibly broad definition of “campaign”, where anything more than total silence is an attempt to browbeat SGK into submission. That’s ridiculous. What non-profit organization, faced with a sudden and steep funding deficit, wouldn’t go public in order to solicit replacement money?
“What does that even mean? You make no sense. Nobody can force SGK to donate anything to anyone, any more than I can “hold” that you must send me a check for $1000 forthwith.”
It means exactly what I said. Show me someone who said that you, or anyone else, had to donate to SGK. You can’t. I can, however, show you many people declaring that SGK had some sort of obligation to donate to Planned Parenthood. Rather easily, in fact. There were petitions from moveon.org, those 20-something Senators signing a letter declaring that Komen should reinstate Planned Parenthood’s funding and the plethora of articles/blogs chastising Komen’s decision. So the better question is what are you talking about?
“Maybe there are a lot of people who think SGK should continue to donate money to Planned Parenthood, given the fact that the nominal goals of each organization run parallel and PP can put that money to good use. So what?They have a right to that belief, and they have a right to mobilize and let other people know that they feel that way.”
I call this a backtrack, but at least you’re backtracking. What do you mean “so what?”. It’s just what I said above and in my last post and my question still stands. Why, exactly, does Komen have to continue donating to Planned Parenthood? The obvious question, of course, is that they don’t have, but that ain’t the prevailing sentiment from the left. Give them money once, and it’s an obligation to give money to them for all of eternity. And perhaps even longer.
“You’re making a groundswell of peaceful (and mostly online, with the locus being SGK’s Facebook page) activism out to be something sinister like a government official threatening an IRS audit if SGK doesn’t play ball.”
It was more like, “If you don’t continue to fund Planned Parenthood, we’re not going to give you any money!”, coupled with a lot of “Omg, investigate Komen!”. But you see what you want to see, so oh well.
“A “campaign”? Really? Where? You’re apparently using an impossibly broad definition of “campaign”, where anything more than total silence is an attempt to browbeat SGK into submission. That’s ridiculous. What non-profit organization, faced with a sudden and steep funding deficit, wouldn’t go public in order to solicit replacement money?”
Sudden and steep funding deficit? Could you be any more dishonest, Joan? Planned Parenthood brings in something like $1B per year in revenues. Here’s a little math question for you; what percentage of $1B is $680K? It’s .068%. To put that into perspective, it would be the equivalent of you having an annual income of $100,000 and losing $68 from it. Let that sink in for a moment just to process the absurdity of what Planned Parenthood was campaigning about.
And, yes, I call it a campaign. What would you call it?
Courtnay,
“What are (you) doing up at that ungodly hour?”
My eyes are glazing over from mp’s nitpicking. :)
Let that sink in for a moment just to process the absurdity of what Planned Parenthood was campaigning about.
PP exposed themselves to the whole country for .068%?
Geniuses. Pure Geniuses.
Doug,
It always gets me. The pathetic lack of imagination that abortion tolerators have. Yes, there is a baby inside her mother. That’s called reproduction. Not the anti-reproduction championed by Planned Unparenthood.
Many of you ridicule anyone with religious beliefs, yet you hold to strange beliefs about needing to be sharp as a tack about someone doing you harm before you deign to call them sufficiently a person.
I’ve got news for you. There was a “you” to know or care about since you were conceived. Not when you were one or voted for the first time. Since you came into existence.
Hans, let her pick the nits. We got the truth.
The one thing God gave us all is the gift of free will. And yet the religious want to take that away. If someone wants to abort its between them and God. Your job on this earth is not to police people on their choices. You have a purpose and I assure you its not your job to go around telling people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. I personally do not support abortion for myself so I avoid getting pregnant. And if I was to get pregnant then I wouldnt get an abortion.
Whats been even more frightening is the levels at which the pro lifers” have taken things. In some states they have tried to legislate miscarriges as punishable by law. This is how obscene this whole ” prolife” movement has gone.
I know hundreds of women who are pro-choice but anti- abortions. And they too believe that it is not their business or oblibation to violate someone elses free will.
Ironically some of these prolifers are willing to condemn the lives of patience who need the care from PP to death for their own beliefs how is that for irony. Your logic is astoundingly very flawed. Instead of wasting time trying to destroy health care facilities how about you put your times helping young teen mothers and educating schools and people of the help they can get if they keep their babies. That to me seems like it would have better results than the current destructive approach
Liyah–
None of us is trying to destroy health care facilities. None of us wants miscarriages to be punishable by law. None of us want ANY woman to die. Most of us here are women, and we love our daughters, mothers, sisters, selves. You have read these things and you have heard them, and all of them are untrue.
I want to ask you a question: Why wouldn’t you have an abortion?
Courtnay –
But by defunding health care facilities that provide pre natal care, breast exams and other women health issues what do you think will happen to those facilities.
There have representatives in georgia trying to legislate anti abortion laws that would also implicate women who have had miscarriages. You have men standing in the United States congress trying to defund PP which once again provides care to many under served women.
People who are pro-choice also love their daughters, mother, aunts, the only diferrence between you and I is that I dont try to impose my will on people’s personal choices.
For the same reason you are anti-abortion I am too the difference between me and you is that I know that its not upto me to decide or tell another woman not do what she wants with her God given free will. Its none of my business neither should it be yours.
Being prochoice means respecting another person own moral stance without forcing mine on theirs. It means that I alone have the freedom to make decision that affect me and not some one else.
The worst about prolifers is how militant its become. Its become so militant it over shadows the sense of their agenda. Being pro lifer should mean All life saving all life before birth and after. Some of you prolifers are the same people who want people executed, who support war.
In your right conscious you should really be focusing on improving mechanism that improve the decision process of a pregnant woman who feels they cant care for the baby. Making abortion illegal never ever stops it from happening- EVER. However it will increase the chances that both mother and fetus will die in some terrible attempt by mother to do it herself. So would it not be better to be discussing and debating issues that issues that make a woman to consider abortion. Would it not be better for anti abortion activist to put all their protest money towards care homes for unwanted babies?
I work with teens with unwanted pregnancies and have managed to convince many of them not to follow through with abortions. Many of them state that even if abortion was illegal with the state they were in they would have gotten it done by hook or crook. There are always happy that through the support we give them they can see how enriched and able they are to raise the child…….
I am too the difference between me and you is that I know that its not upto me to decide or tell another woman not do what she wants with her God given free will. Its none of my business neither should it be yours.
So you’d be okay with your neighbor raping and beating children. After all, they are using their free-will and it is none of your business.
Making abortion illegal never ever stops it from happening- EVER.
Same with rape and murder and arson and battery and. . . . .
I see you avoided the question: Why wouldn’t you personally ever get an abortion?
From what I see and hear from pro-choice, pro-abortion commenters is an unhealthy focus on the uteri of women. Women are more than their uteri, they are whole persons.
If pro lifers are forced by their well-formed consciences to try to save the whole woman from making a tragic and fatal mistake, why should it be that we don’t have that right to intervene, if legally possible, to do everything we can to save the whole person of the mother and the whole person within her womb?
Does anyone have a right to judge the motives of others actions in life or death situations? Yes. If a person knows a building is burning, and doesn’t warn the many people in the building that there’s a fire that will kill them, that person has a moral responsibility to warn the inhabitants. In a case like that, it would be uncharitable, and possibly even criminal, to not speak loudly to try to save as many persons as they could from a horrible death. Those who see the fire and do nothing are the moral law-breakers, not the ones who are shouting “fire”.
The responsibility of the person outside the building, that sees the fire, is not to feed and clothe those persons and provide an education for them until they turn 18, or tell the adults within how to raise their children, or even judge them on their sexual habits. It’s only about saving the persons from death.
Of course, in the case of abortion, it is slightly different, but only slightly, and the moral responsibilities of the one observing the abortion about to happen are pretty much the same as in the burning building scenario. The moral responsibility is to warn the abortionist he is committing murder, and the woman that is contemplating the murder of her child should be given that information BY THE DOCTOR. If the Doctor doesn’t tell his client that he is about to commit murder of her unborn child, and no one tells her, then a cold-blooded, first-degree legal murder will be committed. The moral responsibility would then be on the observer to tell the woman contemplating abortion that she is about to allow a Doctor to legally kill her unborn child.
Since “Roe” was decided way back in 1973, we have learned that the unborn are separate human persons from the moment of conception (we actually knew that before Roe, but the Judges chose to ignore that, and never explained why they did that…strange, yes?).
Fortunately, women can easily read the Roe decision for themselves and see written within the decision itself , a kind of confession to the effect that, “We don’t know, we’re not sure, we may never know….if the unborn are persons….but each person has a right to DETERMINE THAT FOR THEMSELVES.” Well, the pro lifer outside the clinic is giving that woman going in to get an abortion the information that will confirm the human personhood of the unborn. If the woman then disregards that information, she may go ahead and have the doctor legally murder (execute, terminate) her child in cold blood. Legal…not safe (no surgery is safe)….but definitely legal….just like killing Jews was once legal….like killing slaves was once legal….but not any more. Thank God.
“However, had my mom had an abortion, then there never would have been a “me” to know or care about anything.”
Praxedes: Right. Because she would have chosen to pay to have your life taken. Would the world be a better place without you in it, Doug?
In some ways no, in some ways yes – same as for all of us. Nobody’s “perfect” or 100% “bad,” there.
Hans: It always gets me. The pathetic lack of imagination that abortion tolerators have. Yes, there is a baby inside her mother. That’s called reproduction. Not the anti-reproduction championed by Planned Unparenthood.
Why is it “pathetic” to say that we should not force the woman to end or continue the pregnancy against her will? You may have a point about “imagination.” If anything, pro-choicers are not imagining anything that can’t be proven to be, otherwise. Meanwhile, pro-lifers are imputing unprovable things to the unborn and downgrading the pregnant woman – where things are demonstrably provable.
____
Many of you ridicule anyone with religious beliefs, yet you hold to strange beliefs about needing to be sharp as a tack about someone doing you harm before you deign to call them sufficiently a person.
No, “sharp as a tack” is not it. You’ve never seen me ridicule somebody for having religious beliefs. We *all* make unprovable assumptions, be they normally classified as “religious” or not.
On “sufficiently a person” – is the pregnant woman not sufficiently a person to decide for herself?
Hans, I’m sure you’re a “good guy,” and I don’t hold your beliefs – religious or otherwise – against you. With something like the abortion debate, I say let’s start with what is true for all of us, rather than just with what some of us think.
____
I’ve got news for you. There was a “you” to know or care about since you were conceived. Not when you were one or voted for the first time. Since you came into existence.
Should that sentiment on your part trump the feelings of the pregnant woman? I say no. Now that you’re going with the knowing and caring on the part of people, I’d say the pregnant woman is by far the most involved.
“People who are pro-choice also love their daughters, mother, aunts, the only diferrence between you and I is that I dont try to impose my will on people’s personal choices.”
Why do people keep using this line? It’s FALSE. Neither you, nor I nor Doug nor anyone else who posts on this website or lives in this country or even on earth lives in an anarchy. Not a one. We all live in some well-defined society, and that society has rules and laws which govern what one can and cannot do. I have yet to see any pro-choicer argue any of the following:
“Go ahead and engage in rape. I’m not going to impose my will on you(r personal choice).”
“Go ahead and engage in theft. I’m not going to impose my will on you(r personal choice).”
“Go ahead and engage in theft. I’m not going to impose my will on you(r personal choice).”
“Go ahead and engage in child sacrifice. I’m not going to impose my will on you(r personal choice).”
“Go ahead and engage in infanticide. I’m not going to impose my will on you(r personal choice).”
“Go ahead and engage in <enter action here>. I’m not going to impose my will on you(r personal choice).”
And why would they? All of those are ridiculous, though they all involve “not imposing one’s will on another”. I mean, seriously. This whole “not-imposing-one’s-will-on-other-people” line isn’t any kind of argument. It’s, on its face, a laughable assertion. Every time someone uses it, I want to kick a cute puppy in frustration.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand… The sophistry continues.
““However, had my mom had an abortion, then there never would have been a “me” to know or care about anything.””
(1) This operates under the false premise that you don’t exist prior to you’re born. If you didn’t exist, then the topic of your mother aborting you is moot because there is nothing to abort.
(2) If I were to kill you today, you wouldn’t care as you wouldn’t exist, on account of dead people not having any feelings.
Some Guy: (1) This operates under the false premise that you don’t exist prior to you’re born. If you didn’t exist, then the topic of your mother aborting you is moot because there is nothing to abort.
That’s silly, and really pretty much a straw man. As far as an aware being, one with sensation, consciousness, emotion, etc., we don’t exist until a point in gestation – and that’s been the deal all along. If you see somebody saying, “There is nothing at all there,” then I’d disagree with them as strongly as you would.
___
(2) If I were to kill you today, you wouldn’t care as you wouldn’t exist, on account of dead people not having any feelings.
Not after the fact, no, but we were talking about before it.
Some Guy: Every time someone uses it, I want to kick a cute puppy in frustration.
Okay, but is there a good enough reason for kicking the puppy, or for society pronouncing upon your right to do so? ;)
You’re right – all those examples have to do with “our will” or society’s will being imposed on somebody. The question is really whether there’s a good enough reason for it.
Having trouble getting this to post… Might be the totally crappy aircard I’m using.
Some Guy: Every time someone uses it, I want to kick a cute puppy in frustration.
Is there really a good enough reason for kicking the cute puppy, though, and should society pronounce on your right to do so? ;)
You’re right – all those examples involved “our will” or society’s will being imposed on the person. The real question is whether there’s a good enough reason or not.
Moderators – please delete one of the above posts. Strange – didn’t see it post for 15 or more minutes, then all of a sudden it’s there…
Doug,
We do not “downgrade pregnant women” here. If anything, we hold them up on a pedestal as the First Caregivers of our very youngest and most vulnerable.
It is you who downgrade pregnant women by considering them so routine that it shouldn’t matter to us what they decide to do.
My “sharp as a tack” quote didn’t have to do with religion, but with your morally bankrupt notion that the younger, more unaware the victim, the less we should care about her/him. But I say we should care even more.
Let’s face it. What good is any child to society at large, except for the occasional smile? They are somewhat of a burden. They don’t pay taxes. They need constant attention. And the younger they are, the less “sentient” they are.
How rude are these babies? They don’t even know how much they cost us!
My number one criteria is humanity, not sentience. Animals instinctively care for their young. We do so intellectually and emotionally.
Unfortunately, a third of our relatives have succumbed to the wrong intellectulazing and emotions, and are abetted by your apathy.
Why am I visualizing a brick wall?
Hope the right wing inside of Komen is happy, they have destroyed the charity. Now nobody is going to give to them and all the sponsors are wondering how to drop them.
@PhiliP: I wonder why Komen didn’t know PP was taking their $ & spending it to show women how to do breast exams, instead of buying mammogram machines & doing mammograms? The PL movement was telling the world they didn’t do mammograms and then PP themselves told the world they didn’t; the Lila Rose stings revealed that like in Aug or Sept last yr; they made phone calls to PP’s and ….no mammograms at PP….just REFERRALS!!!
Why didn’t Komen cut PP off when they found out? I can’t believe they didn’t know; if you believe Komen wasn’t destroying themselves by ignoring the link between PP and mammograms, you’re not trying very hard to think.
p.s. If Komen ignored the link that wasn’t there (PP /Mammograms), they must’ve been ignoring the link that was there (abortion/breast cancer).
Excellent post, Hans.
Unfortunately, I doubt it will get through to Doug, and frankly, I’ve given up on him, as I don’t know how else to write the same thing over again so that he can understand it.
“That’s silly, and really pretty much a straw man.”
False. And not only is it false, it’s humorous that you– of all people– would accuse someone in engaging in a straw man. A (non-scientific) 98% of your posts are nothing but straw men, and truly terrible ones at that.
“As far as an aware being, one with sensation, consciousness, emotion, etc., we don’t exist until a point in gestation – and that’s been the deal all along. If you see somebody saying, “There is nothing at all there,” then I’d disagree with them as strongly as you would.”
This post just goes to show that you have no idea what you’re talking about. But I’ll get to it below.
“Not after the fact, no, but we were talking about before it.”
Before the fact has zero bearing on anything. Remember the whole “walking into an ICU and unplugging someone on life support” example I brought up? No? Well, let’s recap. Here’s your argument in a nutshell; “if one is neither aware nor sentient, then it’s permissible to kill that person, individual or thing”. That can be written as “~(S v A) > K”, where “s” is sentient, “a” is aware and “k” is kill. “If… then” statements are considered true when:
1.) Both the antecedent and consequent are true.
2.) Both the antecedent and the consequent are false.
3.) The antecedent is false but the consequent is true.
An “If… then” statement cannot be true if the antecedent is true while the consequent is false. Anyway, as we’re assuming that the consequent is true, I’m not going to deal with #2. That leaves #1 and #3.
-For the antecedent to considered “true”, both “s” and “a” have to be false due to the negation. The reason they both have to be false is that logical disjunctions (“or” statements) are only false when neither their A nor B are true (that is, they’re both false). Or, as it relates here, the logical disjunction “(S v A)” is false when neither “s” nor “a” is true. In other words, the person, individual or thing is neither sentient nor aware. This makes the antecedent true and, given the fact that we’re assuming the consequent is true, the entire statement is true and the person, individual or thing can be killed as per your logic. That can mean the unborn, someone under heavy doses of anesthesia, someone in a coma or even someone asleep; it doesn’t matter, just so long as they are neither sentient nor aware.
-For the antecedent to considered “false”, both “s” and “a” have to be false due to the negation. The reason they both have to be false is that logical disjunctions (“or” statements) are only true when either their A or B, or both, are true (that is, they both cannot be false). Or, as it relates here, the logical disjunction “(S v A)” is true when either “s” or “a”, or both, are true. In other words, the person, individual or thing is either sentient or aware, or quite possibly both. This makes the antecedent false and, given the fact that we’re assuming the consequent is true, the entire statement is true and the person, individual or thing can be killed as per your logic. That, essentially, means anyone, as whether they are sentient or aware has no bearing on whether or not that person, individual or thing can be killed.
Ergo the point of mentioning someone in the ICU. Either:
1.) You be logically consistent and argue that just as the unborn can be killed because they’re neither sentient nor aware so, too, can someone in ICU on life support be killed for the same reason.
2.) You be logically consistent and argue that if the unborn can be killed even if they’re either sentient or aware (or both!) soo, too, can someone in ICU on life support be killed for the same reason. Of course, since you’ve never argued this, and have pretty much argued the opposite, you can skip this.
3.) You demonstrate to us all how disingenuous you are and only apply your above rationale to the unborn, which I’m sure you’ll try under the guise of it being the “woman’s body”. Which, for the record, isn’t going to work since you’ve– on more than one occasion–flatly stated that being sentient and/or aware grants one some protection, thus demonstrating that location isn’t important, but rather whether or not one is either sentient or aware.
Now I’m sure I’m going to get some BS response which will netyou a gajillion likes from pro-choicers who can’t even understand simple introductory propositional logic. But I’m ready, so go for it.
We do not “downgrade pregnant women” here. If anything, we hold them up on a pedestal as the First Caregivers of our very youngest and most vulnerable.
Hans, for pregnant women who have unwanted pregnancies and want abortions, you’re saying you know better than them.
____
It is you who downgrade pregnant women by considering them so routine that it shouldn’t matter to us what they decide to do.
You know, I really don’t say that. Not saying you should feel any certain way. If you do, you do. I don’t think your wishes should trump those of the pregnant woman, is all.
____
My “sharp as a tack” quote didn’t have to do with religion, but with your morally bankrupt notion that the younger, more unaware the victim, the less we should care about her/him. But I say we should care even more.
I knew it didn’t have to do with religion, and I’m no more “morally bankrupt” that you are. You and I just don’t agree, is all. It is not solely about “caring or not” about the unborn. It’s, in this case, your wishes for the unborn against other peoples’ wishes for the pregnant woman, and possibly against the wishes of the pregnant woman herself.
____
Let’s face it. What good is any child to society at large, except for the occasional smile? They are somewhat of a burden. They don’t pay taxes. They need constant attention. And the younger they are, the less “sentient” they are.
How rude are these babies? They don’t even know how much they cost us!
Being unwanted is not the same as being “rude.” Who do you see saying that abortion should be legal because “the unborn are harmful to society”? I sure don’t see society as having as much in it as does the pregnant woman.
____
My number one criteria is humanity, not sentience. Animals instinctively care for their young. We do so intellectually and emotionally.
Well hey man, there’s lots of humanity already. You’re over-generalizing with the animals, and not all human pregnancies are wanted. Do we need every single pregnancy continued, to the extent that we tell pregnant women they can’t legally have an abortion. I say no.
____
Unfortunately, a third of our relatives have succumbed to the wrong intellectulazing and emotions, and are abetted by your apathy.
“Wrong” is your opinion. I also don’t think it’s a third, but no biggie. I could as well say your apathy for what the pregnant woman wants is the most operative thing in your argument.
____
Why am I visualizing a brick wall?
Because I don’t agree with you about everything. ;) :)
You did know that, anyway, eh? Hey – welcome to the real world. Why do you think there is such a debate about abortion? There are reasonable, caring people on both sides. I don’t think anything else is really like the abortion argument.
Unfortunately, I doubt it will get through to Doug, and frankly, I’ve given up on him, as I don’t know how else to write the same thing over again so that he can understand it.
X, I understand Hans (and you too). You more value the life of the unborn than you value the pregnant woman being legally free to have an abortion. Not everybody else is the same as you.
You can assert your opinion, over and over, and yeah – I get it as do others, but that doesn’t make it externally valid, “absolutely” true, etc.
Some Guy: Now I’m sure I’m going to get some BS response which will net you a gajillion likes from pro-choicers who can’t even understand simple introductory propositional logic. But I’m ready, so go for it.
That’s not it. It’s that you are at times illogical, and/or misstate what others have said. I see this, and others do too. Let’s take the first thing you replied to:
Doug: “That’s silly, and really pretty much a straw man.”
Some Guy: False. And not only is it false, it’s humorous that you– of all people– would accuse someone in engaging in a straw man. A (non-scientific) 98% of your posts are nothing but straw men, and truly terrible ones at that.
Then evidently you don’t know what a straw man argument is.
Anyway, what I said is “However, had my mom had an abortion, then there never would have been a “me” to know or care about anything.”
You then said, “This operates under the false premise that you don’t exist prior to you’re born. If you didn’t exist, then the topic of your mother aborting you is moot because there is nothing to abort.”
You’ve changed things right there. You’ve gone from the sentient, aware entity, to the non-sentient, unaware, not conscious unborn. *Of course* the non-sentient entity is there, after conception. I never said it was not there, yet you are proceeding as if I did. That’s your error.
I quote: “The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.”
You ignored what I did say, and substituted the notion that “you don’t exist prior to you’re born.” Yes, it’s a false premise, as stated, but I did not say nor imply that. You conjured that one out of thin air, then replied as if I had said it – classic straw man on your part.
“Not after the fact, no, but we were talking about before it.”
Some Guy: Before the fact has zero bearing on anything.
That’s silly. Before the point in gestation where “we” become sentient, any “we” that is there is not sentient. Nothing more involved than that. If one of our moms had had an abortion prior to the embryo or fetus becoming sentient, then there never would have been an “us” or a “we” there to know or care about anything, just as I said.
____
Remember the whole “walking into an ICU and unplugging someone on life support” example I brought up? No? Well, let’s recap. Here’s your argument in a nutshell; “if one is neither aware nor sentient, then it’s permissible to kill that person, individual or thing”. That can be written as “~(S v A) > K”, where “s” is sentient, “a” is aware and “k” is kill. “If… then” statements are considered true when:
It would be much better if you would actually quote me. You are misstating and grossly over-simplifying things. I didn’t say it’s “permissable to kill,” like that, per se. *If* it’s the spouse of the life-support patient, for example, and if there’s no reasonable chance for recovery, then the spouse may say okay – time for organ donation, perhaps, and for “pulling the plug.” It happens all the time. Same for the parents when the kid’s in an accident. The question is if there’s a good enough reason for pulling the plug, and sometimes there is. It’s not up to Joe Blow walking in off the street – it’s up to the people most closely involved. That society permits this, same as for society permitting abortion to a point in gestation, is okay by me.
You’re also neglecting that as far as the abortion debate, the pregnant woman is involved. I do, personally, consider sentience or not in the unborn, just as I consider the pregnant woman’s wishes. This is not the same as the case of a patient in the ICU – there’s not the weighing of anything like the unborn against the woman’s wishes. If it was only a case of us considering the unborn, like the ICU patient, you’d at least have more of a case to start your deliberations, but that’s not the way it is.
_____
1.) Both the antecedent and consequent are true.
2.) Both the antecedent and the consequent are false.
3.) The antecedent is false but the consequent is true.
An “If… then” statement cannot be true if the antecedent is true while the consequent is false. Anyway, as we’re assuming that the consequent is true, I’m not going to deal with #2. That leaves #1 and #3.
-For the antecedent to considered “true”, both “s” and “a” have to be false due to the negation. The reason they both have to be false is that logical disjunctions (“or” statements) are only false when neither their A nor B are true (that is, they’re both false). Or, as it relates here, the logical disjunction “(S v A)” is false when neither “s” nor “a” is true. In other words, the person, individual or thing is neither sentient nor aware. This makes the antecedent true and, given the fact that we’re assuming the consequent is true, the entire statement is true and the person, individual or thing can be killed as per your logic. That can mean the unborn, someone under heavy doses of anesthesia, someone in a coma or even someone asleep; it doesn’t matter, just so long as they are neither sentient nor aware.
-For the antecedent to considered “false”, both “s” and “a” have to be false due to the negation. The reason they both have to be false is that logical disjunctions (“or” statements) are only true when either their A or B, or both, are true (that is, they both cannot be false). Or, as it relates here, the logical disjunction “(S v A)” is true when either “s” or “a”, or both, are true. In other words, the person, individual or thing is either sentient or aware, or quite possibly both. This makes the antecedent false and, given the fact that we’re assuming the consequent is true, the entire statement is true and the person, individual or thing can be killed as per your logic. That, essentially, means anyone, as whether they are sentient or aware has no bearing on whether or not that person, individual or thing can be killed.
Ergo the point of mentioning someone in the ICU. Either:
1.) You be logically consistent and argue that just as the unborn can be killed because they’re neither sentient nor aware so, too, can someone in ICU on life support be killed for the same reason.
Again – there’s nothing with the ICU patient that’s like having the pregnant woman to consider, so it’s a much different deal. However – okay, let’s look at what you’re saying. Yes – I do consider the sentience, if any, of the unborn, same as for the ICU patient. I do see it weighing on the matter, just as many/most of us see the condition of the ICU patient as very important too. For the ICU patient – does society have a good enough reason for making it illegal to “pull the plug”? Past a point, I don’t think so. This is not to say that any old person can stroll in and do it – I’m saying it’s up to the spouse, the family, next of kin, etc. I don’t see a relatively uninvolved third party having the claim to do it, just as I don’t see the desire of others – including pro-lifers – as trumping that of the pregnant woman.
____
2.) You be logically consistent and argue that if the unborn can be killed even if they’re either sentient or aware (or both!) soo, too, can someone in ICU on life support be killed for the same reason. Of course, since you’ve never argued this, and have pretty much argued the opposite, you can skip this.
Cool.
____
3.) You demonstrate to us all how disingenuous you are and only apply your above rationale to the unborn, which I’m sure you’ll try under the guise of it being the “woman’s body”. Which, for the record, isn’t going to work since you’ve– on more than one occasion–flatly stated that being sentient and/or aware grants one some protection, thus demonstrating that location isn’t important, but rather whether or not one is either sentient or aware.
Well, I think #1 is really it.
No, it’s not a matter of “only applying the rationale to the unborn.” It’s that with the unborn and the abortion debate, there is also the pregnant woman to consider, which sets it apart from the ICU example.
If by “location” you mean being inside the body of the pregnant woman, then of course that makes a huge difference. Were that not the case, we wouldn’t have the abortion argument as we do now. I don’t say that location is the end-all of the deal, and neither is sentience or not, and neither is what the pregnant woman want. They all figure into it.
Doug says: February 7, 2012 at 6:24 pm
I quote: “The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.”
You ignored what I did say, and substituted the notion that “you don’t exist prior to you’re born.” Yes, it’s a false premise, as stated, but I did not say nor imply that. You conjured that one out of thin air, then replied as if I had said it – classic straw man on your part.
++ That’s right.
This is incorrect = “Some Guy: (1) This operates under the false premise that you don’t exist prior to you’re born. If you didn’t exist, then the topic of your mother aborting you is moot because there is nothing to abort.
“Prior to birth” was not what was being discussed. No such claims were made about the time in gestation before birth, nor for before when the fetus would be sentient.
Doug,
Oh, this old thread. I’m feeling as blue as it’s showing up right now on my screen.
Yes, I do know better than a pregnant woman who wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Just as she would know better if I lacked a sports car and wanted to steal one. I know that wrongdoers are wrong, whether they know it or not.
It doesn’t matter what I feel. But my wishes that a mother shouldn’t have her offspring killed should be fulfilled, yes.
Babies being considered “excess population” is very common. You’ve never heard this?
We do need “every single pregnancy continued”, to the extent we can help it. Growing humans = good.
I hope someone dislodges a couple of the bricks in that wall, Doug. Then if you”ll just peer through, you’ll see that life and liberty should coexist. Only then can we pursue happiness with a clear conscience.
Oh, this old thread. I’m feeling as blue as it’s showing up right now on my screen.
Hans, yeah – I’m seeing that overall “blue” too. Damn site has been screwy for some time now, the Edit function changed, then didn’t work, now it works but not very well – it will be screwing other stuff up just as you’re fixing the first thing…
I gave you a “like,” by the way.
___
Yes, I do know better than a pregnant woman who wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Just as she would know better if I lacked a sports car and wanted to steal one. I know that wrongdoers are wrong, whether they know it or not.
Okay – your opinion, related to you thinking that abortion is “wrong.” You see a good enough reason for making abortion illegal while I don’t.
___
It doesn’t matter what I feel. But my wishes that a mother shouldn’t have her offspring killed should be fulfilled, yes.
Well, those “shouldn’ts” and “shoulds” *are* your feeling. What can I say? You feel it’s more important for the unborn life to continue, I feel it’s more important for the pregnant woman to retain the freedom she now has.
____
Babies being considered “excess population” is very common. You’ve never heard this?
I wouldn’t have said “very common.” In this day and age – is that still the case?
Historically, I know that it’s been true, and in times of resource shortage things can change quite a bit.
____
We do need “every single pregnancy continued”, to the extent we can help it. Growing humans = good.
It can also be said that freedom is good, and that it’s good to let people choose for themselves unless society has a compelling need to restrict their actions.
____
I hope someone dislodges a couple of the bricks in that wall, Doug. Then if you”ll just peer through, you’ll see that life and liberty should coexist. Only then can we pursue happiness with a clear conscience.
Hans, if it was so clear-cut, there wouldn’t be such an argument over abortion. In this case – the desire to end an unwanted pregnancy, “life and liberty” are at odds, to some extent.
On “clear conscience” – I wish there was a good study about how women who had abortions felt later on, and I mean decades later – were they glad, on balance, that they’d had abortions or not. I don’t know what the results would be, but it’d sure be interesting to see.
Durn. I’m gonna hafta like your response as a tip of the hat, though we totally disagree.
Oops. Should have left the hat on. My head is bloodied from running into a brick wall.
You’ll have that, once in a while. ;)