Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cothrige
If this is so, and if Komen is so sensitive to the situation,...

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.

46 posted on 08/26/2011 4:38:41 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (I am Joe the Hobbit as well as a RINO. Who'd want to be a "real" Republican anyway?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Eagle Eye
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?


47 posted on 08/26/2011 6:45:14 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson