Susan G. Komen for the Cure Reverses Their Decision

Does Planned Parenthood Really Fund Mammograms?

Susan G. Komen Cancer Research Center has relented to the enormous pressure put in place by “the powers that be” and have announced they will once again fund Planned Parenthood.

Nancy G. Brinker, founder and CEO insist that politics played no part in her decision. This is very difficult to believe, but even more difficult is the idea that Planned Parenthood provides mammogram services to women. I have never heard of any woman getting a mammogram at a Planned Parenthood facility.

Here is one report:

A series of new undercover phone calls reveals that contrary to the claims of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and other supporters of the nation’s largest abortion chain, the organization does not provide mammograms for women.

In the tapes, a Live Action actor calls 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 different states, inquiring about mammograms at Planned Parenthood. Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, tells her she will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admit that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure. “We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” admits a staffer at Planned Parenthood of Arizona. Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Health Center clinic in Overland Park, KS explains to the caller, “We actually don’t have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”

Have you heard of anyone ever receiving this service? If so, please leave the name of the facility and its location in the comment section. Also, be aware that when you support the Susan G. Komen Cancer Research Center you are indirectly supporting Planned Parenthood. Such a shame!

About jlue

I am a grandmother of seven and I like to garden, read, study the Bible, and spend time with family. I am not very politically active, but very interested in who is elected to lead our country.
This entry was posted in abortion and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Susan G. Komen for the Cure Reverses Their Decision

  1. Jessica says:

    Thanks for the link, I just learned about this “mammo-sham” yesterday. What a pity. Really, they should have never started funding PP. Wesley J. Smith has more about it here: Abortion Matters More Than Fighting Breast Cancer to Liberals? » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog.

    • jlue says:

      Jessica, for some time now I have had a “don’t do that” moment every time I see the pink ribbon on a product. I could not understand why I felt that way. I kept telling myself that it is a good cause and should be supported, but I had an inner voice saying, “No”. Now I know why. Thanks for the link. It led me here: Think before you pink.

    • jlue says:

      Jessica, I think “mammo-sham” is fair way to describe the deceit used by Planned Parenthood supporters to get Komen to ‘re-fund’ their organization. Routine screening is far from the same as offering mammograms to women. Manuel screening can be taught to women and can be done at home, for that matter, although many women may not check at home. I still believe that Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider, not a women’s health clinic and I think that this is a statement that can be supported with facts. The delicate situations involved make it difficult to prove.

  2. Yes, they do provide mammograms. I was even helped, and warned, about my blood pressure thru a Planned Parenthood office in the San Diego area. About 6 months later, at the age of 36, I had a heart attack. I now, at the age of 53 have 7 stents. It is NOT a “Mammo-Sham” as stated by Jessica.

    • jlue says:

      So a person can call Planned Parenthood in San Diego, CA and schedule a mammogram to be done at their facility? Is there a charge for the service and do you know if this is true of all the facilities in California? Thanks for your input.

      • I do not know that they are all “free”. I believe it may be on a sliding scale for some. At the time, yes, you could call and make appointments for various problems or worries you might have. I sure hope it hasn’t changed in the time, otherwise I will be eating a lot of crow! :)

  3. smijer says:

    Mammograms may be a bit of a red herring in this case.

    Best I can make of it is that most PP facilities do not provide mammograms. SGF’s involvement with them seems to have been largely to fund PP’s breast cancer screenings targeted at young women for whom mammography was not a part of the basic breast cancer screening. If the PP screening called for it, those young women would then be referred to a physician for mammography.

    Oftentimes when something of this sort occurs, and a foundation like SGF (or whoever) comes under criticism, they will make an effort at rationalization to satisfy their critics. The fact that PP largely does not perform mammography was largely true, and an easy one to point to in order to justify SGF’s decision and satisfy their critics. However, that explanation did not seem adequate to many people who value PP’s breast cancer screening service even though it usually doesn’t include mammography, and expect, given SGF’s mission, that they would value it as well.

    When SGF withdrew funding, they may have been signalling the opposition to abortion some of their leadership feels.

    Likewise, some of the criticism SGF encountered after their decision may have included signalling from supporters of abortion access as much as it did support for the mission of detecting and preventing breast cancer.

    • jlue says:

      Komen for a Cure definitely has received pressure to defund Planned Parenthood by National Right To Life and probably other Pro-Life groups. There are some of us who would never have given any support or bought a product with a pink ribbon had we known that even some of the money would go to fund abortion. (I for one). The pressure, however, to fund must have been much greater than the pressure to defund.

      Smijer, I feel sure you are right about the routine screening and I am fairly certain that not a few women do not even receive that, but some lives have been probably saved due to the screening. There is no way the number of lives saved could even begin to approach the number taken by PPA. I do not have any statistics on lives saved, but they would have to be saving womens lives at a rate of 332,278 per year to equal the number of lives taken through abortion.

      • smijer says:

        SGK only funds the breast screening clinics that PP provides, not their abortion services. That is why I mentioned the possibility that the issue revolved around “signalling” opposition to abortion.

        SGK could make a case that this type of signalling on abortion is of greater importance to their leadership than is PP’s contribution to their overall mission. They could make that case honestly. Among their critics are some who are likely to sympathize with the anti-abortion viewpoint and who might accept the case that signalling disapproval of abortion by de-funding the PP’s screening clinics could lead to a reduction in abortion and “save more lives” than the screening clinics would themselves. Those critics could likely be won over.

        There would still be critics – probably a majority of their donors – who feel that political gestures of this sort are less important and less apt to save lives than the clinics themselves, but if SGK truly feels that the political gesture is of utmost importance, then they could stick to the gesture, and explain it honestly, rather than in terms of “investigations” or “mammography”.

  4. jlue says:

    I hope you are right and the SGK are only funding Breast Screening Clinics at PP, however, there has been so much corruption uncovered at PP that I would not want to risk the funds being misused. I know that since Obama has taken office, tax dollars have funded abortion. Some things are out of our hands, but, I try to not risk even one cent of what I give being used in such an abominable way.

    • smijer says:

      I understand that there have been a lot of allegations made against PP for corruption. Given the highly charged political climate surrounding the issue of abortion, and the fact that PP unapologetically provides abortion services, it would be a miracle if such allegations were not rampant. There are similar allegations made routinely against Christian “crisis pregnancy” centers, who are accused of relating falsehoods to their clients about (for instance) increased risk of ovarian cancer resulting from abortions. When the issue is highly polarized in a political environment, it is difficult to draw any sort of reliable conclusions… I personally don’t think a strict probability calculation on such allegations is worth the cost of doing the calculation, versus the criminal court heuristic of “innocent until proven guilty”, but you are welcome to your own heuristic on that matter, and welcome to follow your own conscience in that regard. And, it is incumbent on SGK to do the same.

      • jlue says:

        Yours is the first I have heard of increased risk of ovarian cancer related to abortion. I had heard of breast cancer being related to abortion,but this was silenced and refuted by explaining it away as an estrogen relationship rather than an abortion relationship.

        As to Ovarian Cancer, I found this on line, but did not even know that Crises Pregnancy Centers had been accused of anything regarding Ovanrian Cancer:

        A recent paper by Gierach et al. (2005) found that women who have previously been pregnant and then had an induced abortion had a 31 percent increased chance of developing ovarian cancer.

        Personally, I think women should be told about both possibilities when they go in as well as shown an ultrasound. It is called making an informed decision.

      • smijer says:

        Yes – sorry – the majority of the accusations against crisis pregnancy centers involve charges that they are relating false medical information about breast cancer. Clearly you have found a case where the De Veber institute summarizes a single study that they claim associates ovarian cancer with abortion as well, but obviously they do not include enough relevant research to contextualize this summary, and may not even be accurately portraying the study itself.

        I agree with you that women should be educated about all possibilities if and when they seek education on the matters, but of course that education should responsibly include all of the relevant facts – including the facts that the cancer research community do not see evidence of a causitive link between breast cancer and abortion. Crisis pregnancy centers can serve their goals by presenting moral and emotional arguments to their clients, without distorting medical science in order to deceive them.

      • jlue says:

        I suppose that having lived so long and seeing studies and science go back and forth on so many things it seems to me with something so deadly we should be ‘safe rather than sorry’. I agree that scare tactics should not be used, but facts should not be held back, either.

        Planned Parenthood has been accused on many occasions of not being pro-choice, but rather being pro-abortion.

        There is now an organization where women who feel they are being forced may turn to for help. It is called STOP FORCED ABORTION.

        It isn’t only clinics that apply pressure to women. A clinic should be the place where they can find support and adoption information.

  5. smijer says:

    I suppose that having lived so long and seeing studies and science go back and forth on so many things it seems to me with something so deadly we should be ‘safe rather than sorry’.

    Sounds like to me you are privileging your favored hypothesis.. Would your outlook be the same if someone dregged up a piece of research claiming, contrary to scientific evidence, that abortion helped prevent breast cancer? Better safe than sorry? Or would you demand that people be told the truth about the state of medical research in that case?

    • jlue says:

      Are you really asking me if I would decide that women should kill their unborn children if abortion might give them an increased chance for not having cancer?? Surely you know the answer to that.

      Now think for a minute about what I AM saying. Young women who are pregnant should be told that studies have shown that having an abortion may be linked to an increased risk for some types of cancer. By telling the woman, there are no losers. If the studies are true, and they very well may be, she may be spared that sorrow. If not, she still has the advantage of making an informed decision. She may decide to allow her child to live. A couple who wants to adopt may have the opportunity.

      Every pregnancy carries some risk to the mother as does every abortion. These are risk with which women are acquainted and in the case of pregnancy usually accept with joy. There is no joy in abortion. There is death and sadness in 100% of the cases.

      • smijer says:

        No – I am asking you if you would be as accepting of making sure women are “informed” of outliers from scientific research if those results had the potential to sway them in the opposite direction of your preferences? Consider counseling that does one of the following:

        1) focuses on honest and sincere moral and emotional arguments against abortion, and leaves out health incentives with no scientific merit?
        2) Also includes incentives with no scientific merit only if they sway against abortion, without scientific context?
        3) Also includes all incentives with no scientific merit, regardless of whether they sway toward or away from abortion, without scientific context?
        4) Also includes only incentives with no scientific merit if they are against, along with the facts about the best scientific results from the cancer research community?
        5) Also includes all incentives with no scientific merit, regardless of which way they sway, along with the facts about the best scientific results from the cancer research community?

        It seems to me that crisis pregnancy centers are accused of taking option 2.

        Your statements seem to imply that you are opposed to option one. If so, can you say which is true about you?:

        You accept those accusations as true and defend the practice of choosing option 2.
        You deny those accusations and suggest that while option 2 would be unethical and dishonest, you prefer some other option over option 1.

      • smijer says:

        To give you an idea of my perspective on this matter, please review Policy arguments should not appear one-sided.

        Is Planned Parenthood corrupt? Sure – what human organization isn’t? One can admit to this even if one supports abortion rights.
        Is Planned Parenthood especially or systematically corrupt apart from the normal human factor?…. Probably not. One can admit to this even if one opposes abortion.

        Does abortion increase the risk of depression? Yes. One can admit to this even if one supports abortion rights.
        Does abortion increase the risk of breast cancer? No. One can admit to this even if one opposes abortion.

        Politics is the mind-killer. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you’re on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it’s like stabbing your soldiers in the back. If you abide within that pattern, policy debates will also appear one-sided to you – the costs and drawbacks of your favored policy are enemy soldiers, to be attacked by any means necessary.

        That’s a bad habit to get your brain into. And a hard one to break.

      • jlue says:

        What you are saying about politics is very true for some people. Not so for everyone. I can drop a political party in a heart beat if they begin to support abortion. It may happen in my lifetime that there is no party left who will at least give lip service to protecting the unborn, but some people do seem to accept anything a party does if the one thing they are passionate about is protected. Fortunately, so far, conservative candidates are usually in line with most of the things I can support at least as far as their platform goes.

        A good example of what you mentioned: I was truly astonished when so many people lined up on political teams in favor of ending Terri Shrivao’s life. People who I did not think would ever be for withholding food and water from a disabled person went along with other liberals on that. I still find it hard to believe that people are able to hide behind rhetoric and pretense when an innocent person’s life is involved.

        For me, some things are not negotiable. Abortion is one of those things. As to whether or not it causes breast cancer, you are convinced it doesn’t, I am not certain. I just know it stops a beating heart.

        Now as to what option I am for in regard to information women should receive. I do not put the same confidence in “scientific” findings that you do. Scientist are people. They can be swayed with money, politics, and power to reach conclusions that those in power are supporting. So here is where I look? Are they all reaching the same conclusions without pressure being exerted? When this happens, I think that supports a conclusion and it should be considered as the best information available at the time. If there were no studies showing a relationship between cancer and abortion, then it should never be mentioned. If there are legitimate studies showing a link, women should be made aware. When politicians have become involved and scientist have changed their conclusions, then they must be told that the bulk of scientist refute those findings. That is what I suggest.

        Should a woman who wants an abortion be told that it will protect her from cancer if there is a study showing this to be true? This of course is hypothetical. There is no reason not to tell her. She should be told everything, including the risk of depression that follows. I still believe that when a woman is given all the facts and isn’t pressured, she is likely to choose life for her child.

      • smijer says:

        What you are saying about politics is very true for some people. Not so for everyone.

        Can you give me an example of someone for whom it isn’t true?

        There really are a few people who do a very good job of maintaining a rational perspective even with polarized issues… but they are rare, and they generally aren’t the people who shrug and say, “oh yeah – other people do that, but I’m personally immune.”

        When it involves people who are very liberal or very conservative (or very closely allied with one sect of a religion, or very closely aligned with another sect of a religion, or very anti-religious… or very big fans of Alabama or very big fans of Tennessee), that “rare” goes to virtually none… For these folks, arguments are generally treated as soldiers. I know some exceptions to the general rule, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered any exceptions among passionate advocates.

      • jlue says:

        I think you may be getting ’causes’ confused with politics or maybe in your mind they are the same.

        Causes, in my mind are not the same. For example, homosexuals generally despise Republicans because the parties platform states that Republicans uphold traditional marriage between one man and one woman and should be protected by law. The Republican platform also states that they “affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed”. If those two things are ever dropped, you will see a new party formed in the US.Some of us do not belong to the party, but vote with that party because we are more likely to get a person in office who will uphold the values we hold dear. Others would never vote for a Republican because of those two issues. Even with all the Republicans we have had in office, abortion has remained ‘legal’ according to the state, but it has been somewhat controlled and methods of paying for it have been controlled. There have been policies and laws that prevented people from being forced to perform abortions until recently, so some good comes from voting according to platforms and examining candidates backgrounds. Taxpayers dollars have been kept separate until recently as well.

        Democrats have causes they support.

        Candidates often say they support one thing and then support another when they get in office.

        Personally, I think it is the ’cause’ that people are devoted to. Many do accept things they would not otherwise tolerate if that “one thing” is something they are passionate about. I guess that is what you mean by arguments being ‘soldiers’. I know some people would not have voted for ‘_______________’ if he/she had not lied on some issues, but I do not think they were deceived. I think they wanted the lie. Maybe it makes us feel better about the fact we are voting for him (or her) when the person we want isn’t on the ballot.

        For people of conscience, sometimes we cannot vote, sometimes we vote for the lesser of two evils. Thankfully, so far in America we still have the right to vote and hopefully corruption is held to a minimum so that the vote does mean something.

      • smijer says:

        Many do accept things they would not otherwise tolerate if that “one thing” is something they are passionate about. I guess that is what you mean by arguments being ‘soldiers’.

        No, that isn’t what I mean. I mean that people are unable to evaluate probabilities independently of their political views (whether it is a “cause”, a party, or an ideology – I would suggest that causes are generally derivative from ideologies). So, they are apt to believe any sort of half-baked propaganda against groups or functions associated with something they despise, when they would normally evaluate such propaganda in accord with the balance of evidence if those groups were not associated with the thing they despise.

        You normally wouldn’t embrace scare tactics against, for instance, vitamin supplements. You can find studies that show statistical decrease in longevity as a result of taking vitamin supplements, but the real scientific picture says it can be beneficial and not risky to take vitamin supplements. But, because you aren’t emotionally opposed to vitamin supplements, you don’t support campaigns to bring people’s attention to those outlying studies. On the other hand, there are similar studies that show an increased risk of breast cancer after abortion. You do despise abortion in ways that you do not despise vitamin supplements. Now the proposition that abortion causes cancer is a soldier to use to fight against what you despise, and you would evaluate studies that support that notion differently than ones that support the notion that vitamins kill you.

      • jlue says:

        I see what you mean now. I see a difference, however. There is no study that indicates abortion will prevent breast cancer. There are many studies that indicate it may play a part in causing breast cancer.At best, the evidence indicates it ISN’t a causative factor. Here is what the National Cancer Institute says:

        Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk.

        They go on to explain what may be reasons for not accepting the studies, however, I think women need to be made aware of these findings and to not do so is in my opinion criminal.

        How dare anyone suggest a woman not be told! Now when somebody comes up with a legitimate study showing that abortion saves lives, we can talk about sharing that information. Right now it is irrelevant as it doesn’t exist. All we know for sure is that abortion kills the child and some studies have shown it produces a higher risk for cancer. I did not mention this in the post I wrote, intentionally, but since you brought it up, I will go ahead and say that is a another good reason for SGK to not fund PP.

      • smijer says:

        I see what you mean now.

        So, do you understand why people evaluate studies differently depending on their views of related issues?
        You seem to realize that “At best, the evidence indicates it ISN’t a causative factor”. You don’t indicate it, but I assume you have reflected on the fact that “studies exist” that say all kinds of things for which “the evidence indicates” the contrary, and you normally wouldn’t take a position that one should counsel people that vitamins may kill you before allowing them to buy them on the basis of such studies.

        So you realize that you do evaluate the scientific merits of studies that might persuade people to avoid abortion differently than you evaluate other spurious studies? And you realize that your policy of what to do with such studies is actually determined by your view that “abortion kills the child” – not by a reasonable belief that abortion may endanger the health of a woman and increase her risk of breast cancer, right?

        If you do realize that you say it is important to inform women so they can avoid risks to their health but you really mean that it is important to inform women so they won’t have an abortion, then you understand what I mean by “arguments are soldiers”.

      • jlue says:

        So, do you understand why people evaluate studies differently depending on their views of related issues?

        I thought one of the first things that I said here was that money and politics get involved in studies and findings and we cannot believe all of what is reported. That is why I do not accept all the “scientific” reports either. Scientist are human. The question I always have is do YOU understand that? The best we can do is inform people of what we do have, not squelch information that doesn’t go along with what we want to believe, and let people decide for themselves. That is what we do in a free society. The only reason that some things have to be illegal is that one person’s freedom ends where another begins. Abortion should not be legal because life must be protected in a free society for there to be any freedom for anyone. Recognizing that an unborn has life means an obligation to protect that life. If society will not acknowledge that life exists, we have a problem.

      • smijer says:

        …money and politics get involved in studies and findings and we cannot believe all of what is reported. That is why I do not accept all the “scientific” reports either.

        We can take that as a starting point – fine. However, that doesn’t give us license to take the reports we like and form policy based on them and ignore the ones that we don’t like, does it?

        Do you not see where we are best served to use a consistent standard to evaluate the reports we receive, and apply a consistent policy for how to employ and communicate the various results? Do you not see that it would be better not to create special policies to govern how we react to studies that support our pet causes?

        I don’t see you waxing passionate about how we should warn potential shoppers for vitamins about the risk that some studies report for their health – so I don’t think you are applying the same standard to the vitamin studies that you apply to the abortion studies.

        That indicates that your views on promoting the studies that purport to show risk from abortion are not really motivated by a policy of this type. If they are not motivated by a policy of this type. You have as much as said that your policy is to dissuade them from abortion.

        Do you understand that it is inevitable that beginning from a different objective is almost guaranteed to cause you to end with a different result?

        If you start from the objective of dissuading people from abortion, then the actions you pursue may help you achieve that result, but they will not necessarily end with a set of actions that are optimal for preventing breast cancer. In fact, if they do, it will be purely by accident.

        If you start from the objective of providing the best information in order to prevent breast cancer, then the actions you pursue will not necessarily dissuade people from having abortions. In fact, if they do, it will be purely by accident.

        And, if you don’t bother to make the second plan, but you decide to counsel people about breast cancer as part of your anti-abortion campaign, then you realize that you will probably not do the best possible job of educating people about breast cancer.

        In fact, if you allow yourself to treat the argument about breast cancer as a weapon in the war against abortion, you are likely to come to an incorrect conclusion about the best way to educate women – that may include “informing” them of outright falsehoods that you cannot discern are false, because you’ve never cared enough about the issue for its own sake to make a plan that will allow you to avoid believing the falsehoods yourself.

        That’s kind of how it works. To be rational, and to be able to pursue your real goals effectively and honestly, you have to spend some mental energy in the least convenient world… maybe even the one in which giving women confusing information about breast cancer can really harm them.

      • jlue says:

        What part of “women should be given ALL information” do you not understand? You sound as if you have an agenda. Have you ever wondered why you are so convinced that in your words,”giving women confusing information about breast cancer can really harm them”. That is totally absurd. Women have up to six months to decide about a pregnancy. They do not have to decide the day they walk into an abortion place of business. They have plenty of time to get second, third, and fourth opinions.

        With vitamins, people who care will do the research. Without pressure, pregnant women will do the same.

        People with ‘agendas’ that say ‘this must be done today while this woman is here and confused’ are taking advantage of women. What part of that do you not understand? Women really should be getting all the information ahead of time and then given a few weeks to make up their minds IF not protecting life is going to continue to be ‘legal’. Why are so many people unwilling to give them this time as well as information?

      • jlue says:

        You have changed the subject of the original post to “Should women be educated about breast cancer and if so should those who believe abortion is wrong have any part or say in what information is given in an abortion location?” Do we so hate abortion that we use falsehoods to stop women from getting abortions? (Interesting that you are not concerned with whether or not those who profit from the abortion monetarily use falsehoods to coerce the women into getting the abortion and doing so immediately.)It seems to me that if we err, we should err on the side of caution, but I realize that is not how some people think when it comes to abortion.

        After my visceral reaction to your comment, I am now ready to give a little more thought to discuss your interests in and the implications of “the least convenient world”. The least convenient world seems to evaluate motivations of people which is changing the subject of should Komen fund PP and should women be told of a possible link between cancer and abortion.

        At any rate, Pascal’s Wager is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that since the existence of God cannot be proved (or disproved) through reason, but since in his view there was much to be gained from wagering that God exists (and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn’t exist), a rational person should simply wager that God exists (and live accordingly).

        What exactly is the purpose of this sort of decision? Apparently, for some this is supposed to cause people to consider their real motives in an inconvenient world, if I understand anything about what the writer is saying. What eventually it boiled down to was how to best defend a decision or be able to feel good about what you decide. I suppose there are those who do not know why they do what they do and need this process to live with themselves. It also appeared to me that perhaps the writer wanted to point out that Christians aren’t really any better than atheist. This is true. The difference is that Christians do not have to go through the arduous task of proving everything on an intellectual level.

        Christians are those who understand and acknowledge that:

        The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

        Once a person understands that we are all sinful and therefore actually dead, unable to make anything other than selfish decisions and that the only remedy is to be cleansed, redeemed, and given new life, the wagers and platitudes become meaningless. There comes a point where each person must decide if they will receive life through Christ or if they will reject life. When we choose to receive life, we are for the first time really able to make a decision without having to consider Pascal’s wager. Chapter two of the book of Ephesians explains what happens to a person who is “dead in trespasses and sins” and realizes this, but then goes on to receive the life that is offered by Christ. When this happens to a person, the wager is meaningless. The question of what the world might decide about our motives is meaningless. Our only standard is the standard set by Christ and the only righteousness is that righteousness found in Him. From that day forward decisions are much easier because for the first time, there is a standard. Life has new meaning and new purpose.

        And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Colossians 2:13

        I openly acknowledge that I do not wish for any woman to abort her child. I believe she will be healthier mentally and physically if she chooses life for her child. Christians will always be accused of something distasteful by those who hate them. If it is just an untrue accusation that we are willing to mislead women about a possible danger of breast cancer in order to prevent abortions, so be it. Even if Christians did this, and there is no convincing evidence that it is being done, it would be erring on the side of caution and as a woman, I would certainly want to know all there is to know.

      • smijer says:

        The least convenient world scenario is supposed to be a tool for helping you understand your own, true, real motivations. It is easy to find rationales for what you do (who could argue with “women should be given all the information”?), but rationalization isn’t the goal of reason. The goal of reason is to understand the world, including yourself, and make the best possible decisions.

        My point about accusations of dishonesty against Christian crisis centers was not that I endorse or ask you to believe those accusations – it was to show you that propaganda of this sort is not trustworthy, since you seemed to be very uncritical of propaganda you have read against Planned Parenthood.

        I understand Pascal’s wager. There are good reasons for rejecting it. Pascal did not think through that one very well. However, the rationalist doesn’t just refute a bad argument. The rationalist tries to improve the bad argument as much as possible and consider whether it can help shed light on the truth. The essay about the least convenient world uses Pascal’s wager to illustrate one approach toward doing that. Does an atheist really reject Pascal’s wager for the simple reasons that they normally give? Or is that just a rationalization? To be sure, it can help to consider how you would answer if the “easy outs” weren’t there to pick from.

      • jlue says:

        I know self-analysis is good at times, and we all need to reflect on how we are living our lives. It can also be carried to an extreme and cause one to question every move made and every decision. I can see where it could also cause indecision. People really need a standard or a plumb line that is constant and doesn’t bring with it the misery of self-condemnation or always wondering what the right thing really is. I suppose to atheist, God’s word is considered an “easy-out”, but to those who have experienced life without it and then life with it, it is a light to the path. That is actually what the Bible claims to be:

        Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.

        I am not saying that Christians know every decision immediately and what they should do, but some things are easy. We do have a set of laws to live by that if followed will always bring about good for man and glory to God. Having the big things settled makes the small things much less stressful.

      • smijer says:

        To an atheist, there isn’t any “God’s word”.. so no -“God’s word” isn’t taking the easy way out.

        I have seen believers work very hard to understand the Bible and to distill what the texts really mean based on what they really say. I’ve seen believers who strive to form admirable ethical principles and who rely on the Bible for guidance in that project. I disagree with that approach, but I can surely respect it. And I respect the honesty and curiosity that pushes some believers to put aside doctrine and really understand the Bible.

        On the other hand, I’ve seen believers who misunderstand the Bible terribly because of efforts to force it to fit a doctrine of “inerrancy” or some other man-made doctrine. I’ve seen some misunderstand it by searching it for their preferred answers to modern ethical dilemmas that it never addresses. I’ve seen some who will take what they perceive (correctly or incorrectly) as the Bible’s moral viewpoint and miss the opportunity to think about the real answers to questions of right and wrong. I’ve seen believers who twist themselves in knots trying to avoid the truth about some minor error of fact or major error of ethics to be found in the Bible – and I’ve seen this kind of unwillingness to put truth ahead of doctrine given its own academic field of study in theological seminaries (apologetics). Although many of these people are good and fine and no more wrong in their own way than most everyone else is, I can’t say I endorse their approach at all.

        Members of both groups of believers are guilty of taking the easy way out. Most unbelievers are just as guilty.

        There is virtually no one who doesn’t take the easy way out from time to time. You expressed a need for certainty and consistency:

        It can also be carried to an extreme and cause one to question every move made and every decision. I can see where it could also cause indecision. People really need a standard or a plumb line that is constant and doesn’t bring with it the misery of self-condemnation or always wondering what the right thing really is.

        That is human nature…. no one enjoys living with uncertainty, or enjoys the necessity of relinquishing certainty when they feel they have it. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees that the world will be simple, obvious, and black and white. So, most people do take the easy way out more often than not. But just because we do it doesn’t mean we have to be proud of it. It doesn’t mean we have to pretend that it’s the best way to understand the world and make the best choices.

  6. Al says:

    Any proven fact relating to a woman’s health or relating to development of a fetus should be available to all pregnant women, regardless of which view of abortion it may encourage.

    Results of every conclusive study should be available to every pregnant woman regardless of which view of abortion it may encourage.

    The practice of someone purposely causing the death of a fetus, (who has no say in the matter, by the way), with or without the mother’s consent, should never have become legal in the first place. It involves death… it is murder. Abortion stops a beating heart, as you have heard.

    Women who feel that abortion is their only choice: put the outcome of your pregnancy in the Lord’s hands…easier said than done, but you won’t regret it. Women who have had prior abortions and regret it: take heart!!! The Bible is very clear that the Lord forgives murder. (remember Paul, David etc.) Confess it and repent of it. People whose vote resulted in the legalization of abortion: take heart!!! Again, the Lord will forgive when you confess and repent.

    If there is a chance that Komen’s funding of PP results in the termination of even one pregnancy, (directly or indirectly) then I will choose to support some other women’s charity.

  7. Pingback: What is Planned Parenthood and who was its founder – Margaret Sanger? | Jlue’s Weblog

Comments are closed.