So did I and likely thousands of other women who believe that women should have the health care they need, no matter what that might be.
So you’re okay with preventing women from getting the health care services they need, women who have few options when it comes to healthcare, usually poor women, and women who are not even getting abortions. In other words, you’re willing to hurt women who have absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous crusade against abortion. Yeah, that makes sense.
If you believed your money was used, directly or indirectly, to kill children , would you still donate?
It doesn’t divert money to abortions. Abortions are paid for by other people via specific donations.
If you believed that, you’d be wrong.
Hypothetically then.
You give to an organization money to fund vitamins for the elderly.
Because they have this money, they can use their funds to help the killing of children.
Do you still donate?
That’s not a hypothetical, it’s a different situation. Their money comes from separate sources. No matter how much Komen gives them, it won’t pay for abortions. No matter how little they get to cover the cost of abortions, they won’t take money from other donations. They do this deliberately so people who are opposed to abortion will still be willing to fund other services PP provides because they’re important. What they failed to expect, I guess, was that once conservative politicians got Planned Parenthood in their sights they would just start lying about what the organization does.
Good for you. Komen and her organization became a social stain.
Bullshit. We all know damn well that the organization was seeding other ventures that had nothing to do with cancer research or prevention. When you donate for a cause you expect it to go to that cause and nothing else.
The fact that it involves controversial issues such as abortion, is besides the point.
I can see you think you know a lot about what I know and what I expect. I disagree, though. And nobody ever said PP was some kind of exclusively cancer-related organization - the name alone tells you it isn’t.
There are some objective truths about when it can’t cross the line to personhood.
For instance, the presence of a brain. For the first several weeks of its existence, the fertilized egg/embryo/fetus doesn’t have one. You can’t be a person without one, at least not in the context of this space-time continuum.
You are free to believe God has already created you as a person beforehand (Jeremiah 1:5 and all that), completely apart from any dependence on that body for your personhood. Maybe he has all these ‘persons’ just kinda floating around in Godsphere, waiting for fetuses to develop brains that he can glue the persons to, and if a woman has a miscarriage just a few weeks after conceiving, that person stays in Godsphere a little longer, and winds up getting glued to a different fetus. Who knows? But in this universe, you need a brain to be a person.
RTFirefly:
I think that brain existence is a very sensible line of demarcation.
Sadly, that’s not the sort of reasoning that goes into most abortion-rights discussions.
So that’s an I’m-chickenin’-out on the hypothetical.
I’ll rephrase for the 2nd grade readers.
An organization called “We Love Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and want them to come back to life so that they can kill more people” has a budget of 10 million dollars.
They use 5 million to promote death-squads and suicide-bombers that specifically target orphanges for underprivileged blind orphans with AIDS and ALS.
They use the other 5 million to promote healthy eating habits in public schools.
I want to donate 2 million to their healthy eating program.
They can now use, say, 1 million of the originally alloted money for healthy eating for their death groups because they have more money.
My donation is fully used, with receipts and all, for the healthy eating program, not a dime for the death squads.
NOW, in this specific hypothetical: do you donate?
It’s not analogous to PP, though.
Your hypothetical doesn’t apply to this situation. What’s the point of the hypothetical?
What does your offensive hypothetical have to do with the topic of this thread?
If you think (rightfully or not) that abortion kills people and you’re givingm money to an organization that promotes abortion, you don’t want to give money to that organization even if said money is not going to abortion directly. SGK’s reaons may be more complicated, but it all stem from abortion.
Hence the applicability of my hypothetical.
I still don’t see it. The number of abortions performed by PP is independent of their donation income. If you withhold donating from PP because of abortion, you fail to affect their abortion stats and deletoriously affect their ability to provide health and wellness services.
Not just women.
It doesn’t promote abortion.
Instead of directly that should read “at all.”
Hell, I would. Kids need killing
I’d take that as a yes.
Maybe you didn’t read the part of “rightfully or not”. What matters is what you believe.
Ok, at all. Now, would you donate to such organization?
Finally an honest answer.