Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: F Komen

  1. #51
    Banned
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    1,891
    Thanked 5,124 Times in 3,086 Posts

    Default Re: F Komen

    Quote Originally Posted by rickdugan View Post
    IMHO that is an emotional response based upon your dislike of the organization's views on certain matters rather than a logical one. It took years for this Foundation to build the large scale fundraising operations that it has today, including not only the gound-level networks necessary to hold the walks and other fundraising events but also a variety of partnerships with large corporate sponsors, including the likes of the NFL, KFC, grocery store chains, and many others. All of that will not be replaced overnight, regardless of who tries to fill the void.

    But while we are at it, if we are going to blow up organizations because they have certain social policy viewpoints, we would also have to take down organizations like Catholic Charities, which spends billions each year helping the poor and is in fact the largest provider of social services in this country outside of the federal government. And what about the Salvation Army as another example? It is not realistic to think that you can separate charitable organizations from having opinions on social matters as the very reason that these entities raise so much money in the first place is because their views reflect the values of many of their donors.

    Anyway, just a couple of thoughts on the matter.
    Many here don't like the Catholic Church and I suspect these people would have strong feelings on it. I would disagree because I think the church does a lot of good with helping the poor. Recently there was an issue in Illinois where one of the Diocese's got into some sort of trouble because they refused to place gay couples with children. I'd have to look it up but if I recall the state took away their grant to place kids in adoptive homes because of this. It opens the question does a church organization have the right to discriminate? I don't know, especially if given state grants. On the other hand don't they have the right to make sure their views are protected too? I should mention that I have been interviewing with several Catholic organizations and they have been asking my views and if I am a practicing Catholic (I am). Many Christian organizations (not just Catholic)do question whether someone has the same views and one should realize this if they interview there. Same thing with any organization with a political bent.

  2. #52
    Veteran Member caitlin1214's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    536
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 225 Times in 127 Posts

    Default Re: F Komen

    Quote Originally Posted by MargaritaVillain View Post
    I posted this on my Facebook page.

  3. #53
    Veteran Member caitlin1214's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    536
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 225 Times in 127 Posts

    Default Re: F Komen

    Around the holidays, there are lots of people with Salvation Army buckets. Other people put in money, but this is the fifth year I haven't.

    Without getting into it, I disagree with some of the Salvation Army's policies.

    At the same time, I recognize that they do good work and I don't want to punish those that benefit from this particular charity.

    My grocery store has little food packs (peanut butter, mac and cheese and the like) that people can buy and then donate them to a food pantry bin. That's also run by the Salvation Army.

    In lieu of money, I've been buying a food pack and then donating it.

    I like to call it peanut butter for the people.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to caitlin1214 For This Useful Post:


  5. #54
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    154
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 35 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: F Komen

    So many facts wrong in so many posts

  6. #55
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: F Komen

    well, here's a medical fact that should have been noticed by Komen ...


    (snip)" Less than two months since the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force issued new guidelines recommending against routine mammograms for women in their forties, a second breast cancer scandal involving a U.S. government panel of experts has come to light which has implications for healthcare reform.

    An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. [1]

    Additionally, Dolle’s team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.

    “Although the study was published nine months ago,” observed Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, “the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women.”

    Brinton was the chief organizer of the 2003 NCI workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link, which falsely assured women that the non-existence of the link was “well established.” [2]

    Dolle’s team reported in Table 1 a statistically significant 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions. They listed abortion among “known and suspected risk factors.”

    Brinton and Daling had previously studied this population from the Seattle-Puget Sound area in the 1990s and reported risk increases between 20% and 50% among women with abortions. [3,4] In the 2009 study, they and their co-authors wrote that their findings concerning induced abortion, OC use and certain other risk factors, “were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women.” (snip)

    There are other studies showing the same results ... example Hunter Study from Boston

    (snip)Results: During 1,246,967 person-years of follow-up, 1,344 cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed. Past use of any oral contraceptive was not related to breast cancer risk [multivariate relative risk (RR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.33]. Current use of any oral contraceptive was related to a marginally significant higher risk (multivariate RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73). One specific formulation substantially accounted for the excess risk: the RR for current use of triphasic preparations with levonorgestrel as the progestin was 3.05 (95% CI, 2.00-4.66; P < 0.0001).

    Conclusions: Current use of oral contraceptives carries an excess risk of breast cancer. Levonorgestrel used in triphasic preparations may account for much of this elevation in risk. (snip)


    Perhaps Komen realized that their donations to Planned Parenthood were in fact CAUSING more cases of breast cancer ... which is in direct opposition to their stated purpose.

  7. #56
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: F Komen

    Which right-wing site did you get this (mis)information from? Comprehensive studies have shown there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. From:

    http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastC...-breast-cancer

    -snip-
    The largest, and probably the most reliable, study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In this study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. All of the information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries – it was very complete and was not influenced by recall bias.

    After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provide good evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

    Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003.

    Again, because they were asked about childbirths and abortions at the start of the study, recall bias was unlikely to be a problem. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.

    The California Teachers Study also reported on more than 100,000 women in 2008. Researchers asked the women in 1995 about past induced and spontaneous abortions. While the women were being followed in the study, more than 3,300 developed invasive breast cancer. There was no difference in breast cancer risk between the group who had either spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not had an abortion.
    -snip-

    In regards to the study you quoted,

    http://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteur..._breast_cancer

    -snip-
    The bottom entry in the table looks at the impact of abortion history on subsequent development of breast cancer. The relative risk is 1.4 meaning that women who had had an abortion were 40% more likely to develop breast cancer than those who had never had an abortion.

    The results were not statistically significant, but no matter. The “right to life” folks are not bothered by such trivial details. Because of their profound commitment to the health of women they want to do everything possible to prevent death from the scourge of breast cancer.
    -snip-

    The donations Komen was making to Planned Parenthood were for cancer screenings, not birth control or abortions. Cancer screenings help prevent death from cancer.
    Last edited by eagle2; 02-11-2012 at 03:16 PM.

  8. #57
    Banned
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    1,891
    Thanked 5,124 Times in 3,086 Posts

    Default Re: F Komen

    I've never heard of the abortion-breast cancer link either. I did read that those who had kids tended to have a lower risk, though there might be a slightly higher risk if the mom is older. Not sure I believe any of this because things can be twisted to fit an agenda. The one stat I do believe is that those from high risk families have a greater risk. I'm sure in that respect I am lower risk because I have one woman in my family to get breast cancer, my great grandmother. Neither of my grandmothers or any aunts have had breast cancer, nor has my mom.

  9. #58
    God/dess rickdugan's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,570
    Thanks
    4,406
    Thanked 7,481 Times in 2,715 Posts
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: F Komen

    Quote Originally Posted by Dddallas View Post
    So many facts wrong in so many posts
    Feel free to educate us then.

  10. #59
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: F Komen

    Which right-wing site did you get this (mis)information from? Comprehensive studies have shown there is no link between abortion and breast cancer
    Unfortunately I'm not allowed to elaborate due to the SW 'Politics Ban'. However, I can factually point out that, much like global warming studies, where there are a group of studies that support one position and another group of studies supporting a different position, the group of studies that will be given 'credibility' is the one preferred by Salon.com and US mainstream media ... at least up to the point where the incorrectness of the media preferred position can be proven !


    The donations Komen was making to Planned Parenthood were for cancer screenings, not birth control or abortions. Cancer screenings help prevent death from cancer.
    as always, money is 'fungible'. Much like SNAP cards being used in strip club ATM's, there is no basis to conclude that Plant Parenthood specifically used money donated by Komen only for cancer screenings.

  11. #60
    God/dess Trem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,958
    Thanks
    1,714
    Thanked 3,253 Times in 1,343 Posts
    My Mood
    Angelic

    Default Re: F Komen

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Unfortunately I'm not allowed to elaborate due to the SW 'Politics Ban'. However, I can factually point out that, much like global warming studies, where there are a group of studies that support one position and another group of studies supporting a different position
    That says it all, thank you.
    "Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Komen Race For The Cure
    By PrettyCurlieQ in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 06:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •