Posted on 08/22/2011 1:40:18 PM PDT by NYer
That is your assumption, which doesn't make sense based on what Komen states. They say that they are funding services that wouldn't otherwise exist, not funding services that already exist.
Additionally, they say that they are granting to 19 PP clinics which comes to about $37k per clinic which looks like about one part time salary. I don't see how that frees up money for anything else.
Add to it that Komen is pretty sensitive about it or sensitive enough to know that it needs to stay on top of the situation with audits and public responses.
IMO, y'all have your minds made up based on accusations that may not stand up to scrutiny, haven't read the Komen statements, and won't.
I stand by my statement that the abortion/breast cancer link is a monolithic money-making racket which will not be dissolved until abortion is made illegal again and PP is shut down for good.
Have you read the Komen statements?
Oddly, no one that I have asked that question has responded.
I find less inconsistencies in their statements than in the accusatory statements.
Obviously you and others disagree with them and somehow believe that nothing else that they do matters because you don’t agree with them funding 19 clinics with breast screening staff.
What about churches that send missionaries into ‘pagan’ cultures or cultures with which they vehemently disagree? Does living with ‘pagans’ cancel out everything else that the church stands for?
Don’t get me started on the Cancer industry in this country. It’s shocking what’s happening....I plan to post some interesting articles and information regarding this topic in the future.
IMO, y'all have your minds made up based on accusations that may not stand up to scrutiny, haven't read the Komen statements, and won't.
This is an inaccurate assumption as I have read at least most of the documents you linked to, but I simply do not see any reason to believe that anything there actually proves that money PP gets doesn't affect how much money they then have available for abortions. It may not have any such effect, but I am not convinced simply because the numbers are small or the dollars are tracked. These issues ignore too many other implications and factors which may be at play.
Add to it that Komen is pretty sensitive about it or sensitive enough to know that it needs to stay on top of the situation with audits and public responses.
This is an interesting claim, especially when considered alongside another statement you have made that Komen's money only pays for supplemental staffing for breast exams. If this is so, and if Komen is so sensitive to the situation, then how do you explain the article on the page you linked to (a page which is ostensibly dedicated to answering questions from people about the money Komen gives to Planned Parenthood) headed "Is there an abortion/breast cancer connection? Modern studies say no." http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content_Binaries/2008AbortionBreastCancerBackgrounder.pdf
If none of this money ever enables the performance of abortions, and if this is so absolutely well documented, and if Komen is so sensitive about this issue, then why I ask do they publish a paper attempting to prove that abortions don't increase the risk of breast cancer? This is a silly argument to make if they are not funding them, or not even enabling the funding of them indirectly by giving money to this organization? It seems very strange to publish defenses of abortion funding on the page claiming no abortion funding is going on. You may think Komen is sensitive, but if so I would have to wonder exactly what they are really sensitive about.
Maybe you should ask them? Logic says that with attacks like the posted article that they know there are people who don't agree with their grants and so they publish an answer to them. Obviously most don't read them, preferring to knee jerk attack on straw men arguments.
If none of this money ever enables the performance of abortions, and if this is so absolutely well documented, and if Komen is so sensitive about this issue, then why I ask do they publish a paper attempting to prove that abortions don't increase the risk of breast cancer?
Last time I checked, the interpretations of the results of objective studies were mixed, people seeing what they want, especially pro lifers. It appeared that there wasn't statistically significance to establish any realistic link, and even if there was a strong positive correlation, correlation never even implies causation. Basic statistics there.
Do you honestly believe that Komen is spending a whopping $700k to fuel abortions with the secret hope of increasing cancer so that they can use those cases for fund raising purposes. That essentially is your argument and I don't think it makes any sense.
Do you honestly believe that Komen is spending a whopping $700k to fuel abortions with the secret hope of increasing cancer so that they can use those cases for fund raising purposes. That essentially is your argument and I don't think it makes any sense."Secret hope of increasing cancer"? That is a strange interpretation, but it has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Here is the real situation as I see it. Komen argues they give no money to abortion and that they only pay for breast exams. They also claim that they carefully audit all their donations in order to ensure these facts. Fine, but then, on the page dedicated specifically to documenting these facts, they take the time to post an article defending abortions as not causative of cancer. This has nothing to do with their donations to Planned Parenthood since they don't in fact fund abortions, or so they say. Why post that odd article, and what does its posting mean given their sensitivity to the issues?
Let us consider a comparison. Imagine that in the midst of the clerical abuse crisis in the Catholic Church the bishops had put up a page defending themselves against the charges brought against them. In doing this they post articles detailing the diverse programs they have maintained in order to prevent any possibility of abuse. They argue they have been keen defenders against this and that the priests have been carefully trained and screened in order to avoid even the slightest mistake. These charges are unfounded, they insist, and their priests would never do these horrible things. Maybe, maybe not, you might say, but it is consistent in any case. However, what if they then posted an article stating that priests having sex with children isn't evil in the first place, and that actually the kids really like it and it makes them feel loved. It is nothing more than a healthy expression of mutual affection. Might this seem a strange thing to post in that environment, and given all the denials given up to that point? If there is no abuse what relevance do these claims have? How might it reflect on both the sensitivity of the bishops to the charges, and the veracity of the many previous denials?
I am not their spokesman, I cannot answer questions regarding motivation. I didn't find it particularly odd considering the rage expressed against them by people who won't bother to look at both sides.
Let us consider a comparison.
Bad comparison, imo. The RC church was aware and actively hid the pedophiles. I'm not saying that pedophilia was an institutional norm, but it seems that they didn't do a whole lot to prevent or punish it.
What it seems to me is that Komen takes a pittance of their funds, chooses a few (19 isn't many) clinics for a small grant ($35k per isn't a lot) to fund a few exam specialist staff. Word gets out that they grant money to PP and the knee jerk reaction is exactly what one sees on this thread by those who, by and large, REFUSE to look at the other side.
Even if we don't agree on this, I appreciate your discussion.
FreeRepublic has a reputation for eating their own and pro-lifers are the worst of the worst of those.
I didn't find it particularly odd considering the rage expressed against them by people who won't bother to look at both sides.
You didn't? I find that very strange. Why would you consider a defense of abortion relevant to claims they aren't paying for abortions? How does that have anything to do with it, and how does it in any way deal with this rage people have against them? I hardly think pro-life people are going to be assuaged by arguments that abortion doesn't cause breast cancer and decide that it is then acceptable to fund it. I rather imagine that they would point out that while it may not give the mother cancer it surely doesn't cure it, and more importantly has a 100% fatality rate for the child.
Bad comparison, imo. The RC church was aware and actively hid the pedophiles. I'm not saying that pedophilia was an institutional norm, but it seems that they didn't do a whole lot to prevent or punish it.
Why post this? You know very well I was not drawing an analogy between abortion and hebephilia and ephebophilia. The comparison was about denying doing something and yet simultaneously defending doing it. It indicates a lack of sensitivity and perhaps veracity regarding the denials.
And, btw, it is a bit amusing that you are posting comments on the sex abuse issue in manner which is strikingly similar to how you describe those against Komen. I am not looking to derail things towards that topic, but it seems rather clear you have done nothing to investigate all sides of the issue and instead are assuming what the loudest people have said is the truth.
FreeRepublic has a reputation for eating their own and pro-lifers are the worst of the worst of those.
Yes, this is true I think. However, I am not interested in attacking people who support Komen, or even Komen really. I merely think their defense is flawed. I also don't judge pro-life people who may give money or support Komen. However, giving money to a group cannot be waved away as they are doing because there are more effects than just what the dollars are spent on. Most of us know this and act accordingly, but I think we sometimes make ourselves comfortable with rationalizations. It happens in politics all the time and explains why so many "conservatives" like George W. Bush in spite of his big-government policies.
Do you have any proof that disproves Komen’s statements?
Komen are no good...liars, frauds, etc.
Proof that disproves? I never claimed they were lying, only that their truths don’t necessarily signify as much as we might wish to believe. Money given to PP to fund staff costs for breast exams means that an equal amount of money which may have been required to do this can now be dedicated to other purposes. For some that may not mean much but it is enough to make me at least wonder about the facts. And I am also troubled by the posting of an article defending funding abortions on a page dedicated to insisting that Komen doesn’t fund abortion. Such an action should raise red flags for critical readers, and it certainly does for me.
You are assuming that the clinics were already performing these services. Any evidence of that?
Yes, I'm assuming they weren't or else there wouldn't be a need to pay for these services.
You are assuming that the clinics were already performing these services. Any evidence of that?
No, I don't think my point requires such an assumption. For all we know PP was looking for an opportunity to open such clinics and would have done so regardless of the donation. I think there are probably many ways that money given to PP could enable them beyond the intended purposes even if carefully detailed and tracked. Though, and I think this is important, I am not specifically alleging that Komen's donations did this, only that it is impossible to ensure they didn't. And this naturally bothers many people.
Personally, I wouldn't give a nickel under any circumstance to Planned Parenthood. I know many people who feel the same. Therefore it is of little surprise to me that people are also opposed to giving money to an organization which in turn gives it to PP. I don't think that requires maligning Komen or their intentions but merely reflects how people naturally feel about organizations such as PP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.