ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

#PPGate

Someone asked me at the Brainstorm session last night how abortion foes could utilize #GamerGate tactics to take down Planned Parenthood. I said I didn't know, but that it would be tough if they were reliant upon government funding, because choking off government funding is difficult.

Well, Moe Lane just provided the answer.
“Here are the 41 companies that have directly funded Planned Parenthood.”

    Adobe
    American Cancer Society
    American Express
    AT&T
    Avon
    Bank of America
    Bath & Body Works
    Ben & Jerry’s
    Clorox
    Coca-Cola
    Converse
    Deutsche Bank
    Dockers
The rest of the 41 corporations are listed at the link. Start sending emails, complete with quotes from the Planned Parenthood people about selling organs from aborted infants, to the PR/Marketing departments of these corporations and asking them if they support those practices. Put all the relevant names and emails on a central site, complete with various draft emails, and then start sending emails. Recruit others to do so. Talk about your activities under the #PPGate hashtag.

Don't threaten, don't talk about boycotts, don't quote Bible verses, just try to get a statement from them concerning whether they support Planned Parenthood's sale of harvested human organs. Don't whine, suck it up and recall that thousands of gamers did this for weeks before getting any results. Another important thing is to regularly push encouraging graphic memes on Twitter; this is only one of hundreds of examples of the images posted by #GamerGaters to keep the emails flowing.

Labels: ,

282 Comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 282 of 282
Anonymous The Original Hermit July 22, 2015 11:02 PM  

@ David 093

Yes, something highlighting the positive faction is infinitely better.
BabyGate
AngelGate

Blogger Marie July 22, 2015 11:19 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Marie July 22, 2015 11:22 PM  

@201 The Original Hermit
"Yes, something highlighting the positive faction is infinitely better.
BabyGate
AngelGate"

I disagree. People are outraged and disturbed by this. Even pro-choice people.

If you start introducing the concept these are babies (which they are) after people have condition themselves to see them as nothing but a mass of tissue you are going to go up against a wall. Yeah, you might win a few but you'll probably lose more.

I think we'll win a lot more to our side by putting PP on the defense and limiting their ability to fund raise than we will by getting a few people to have a "Eureka! It is a baby!" moment.

Capitalize on their disgust and use it to our advantage. We can talk them through "why" they are disgusted once we have won.

Anonymous zen0 July 22, 2015 11:29 PM  

@ 200. Mr. Rational

Embryos are no more human beings than are gametes.

Gametes have not yet interacted to begin the process of which Embryos are the product. What are Embryos in relation to zygotes?

Blogger Andy Freeman July 22, 2015 11:35 PM  

> Is the SJW tactic to stay cohesive and narrow or is there leeway to go lone-wolf and broaden? Or does that weaken the assault?

(1) How about you explain why it's important for you to "lone wolf"?
(2) Has your "broaden" idea ever been used successfully? ("I don't know" means "no". Odds are what you're thinking of has been tried hundreds of times and failed every time.)
(3) Does your idea require mass to be effective/successful? (Hint - "lone wolf" has no mass.)

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 22, 2015 11:43 PM  

Sure. The breast cancer-abortion link has been very well-documented.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24369207
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19771534
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20335156
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24272196


I followed those even though you stripped off the http:// to make it more difficult, and I couldn't help but notice... ALL of the studies are from India or China.  And what about nuns again?  Oh, right:  they are generally nulliparous, which is a risk factor (more menstrual cycles and more growth cycles of breast tissue).

Here's one linking number of abortions to death in childbed:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22954474


You can't even get the title correct; it's "Reproductive history patterns and long-term mortality rates", nothing at all to do with chidlbed deaths.  At least that one's from Denmark, but it doesn't mention any lifestyle factors in the abstract.  It confirms nulliparity as a risk factor (e.g. nuns).  The unasked question:  are multiple abortions associated with risky lifestyles?  We can be assured that they're associated with inconsistent or non-use of contraception, which suggests carelessness in general (a risk factor for everything).  The real kicker:  none of the abstracts mentions correcting for alcohol and tobacco use.

What all of this suggests is that women might want to take hormones to halt their menstrual cycles (and all the cyclic growth and regression of ovarian, uterine and mammary tissues) until they want to have children.  As for abortion?  Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term to reduce her chances of a tumor decades down the road isn't a tradeoff anyone should be able to force a woman to make in a FREE society.

Blogger CM July 22, 2015 11:54 PM  

Mr. Rational's terms are mixed up.

25% of abortions in 2011 were done to Fetuses (10 weeks and beyond)... not embryos.

It isn't clear when PP abortions result in a transaction, but if organs are actually involved, its clinically A BABY (10 weeks and on).

*Sources -
Baby Center for fetal development
Abort73.com for weeks in which abortions occur

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 22, 2015 11:57 PM  

Gametes have not yet interacted to begin the process of which Embryos are the product. What are Embryos in relation to zygotes?

A later developmental stage.  But what makes the human being is the brain.  Being human means thinking and feeling.  When the brain is gone, so's the human being.  Before enough brain is there, there is no human being there yet.

How much is "enough"?  I side with those who say "enough to show EEG patterns of consciousness" (roughly 30 weeks), but I'm willing to listen to people with suggestions for why that should be bent one way or another.

My consideration is the alleviation of human suffering.  I don't want parents to e.g. be forced to carry an anencephalic fetus to term because a bunch of people who aren't the least bit involved think abortion is icky.

if organs are actually involved, its clinically A BABY (10 weeks and on).

It's a baby when it's born.  At 10 weeks it's not even the slightest bit viable.

Anonymous Flinders July 23, 2015 12:00 AM  

I'm currently compiling a list that I'll put on pastebin.

I've used the emails you guys have posted and I'm going to look for the rest and link to webforms where needed.

Note Xerox (and as noted above) Ford are not sponsoring so you don't need to email them unless you hear otherwise.

I would also pass this on to other sites to get help.

I will once the list is done but a good one would be coordinating with people like Matt Walsh and Steven Crowder as they are both unreservedly against it and don't want this story to die. They both have following big enough to add thousands more emails to what we can do.

https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog
https://twitter.com/scrowder

Even Milo would help.

Also, even if they maintain government funding, losing this much money would see jobs and services go and if enough of the corporate world distance themselves it will embolden the otherwise spineless GOP.

A final thought I had is that if this email offensive backfires and companies start ignoring them, we would have still disarmed SJWs of their most potent weapon: public outrage. This is still worth striving for and we may at least take a few low level scalps in the process.

Anonymous Donn #0114 July 23, 2015 12:12 AM  

Mr Rational is Tad

Shut up Tad

Anonymous Flinders July 23, 2015 12:23 AM  

Here is what I have compiled so far (sorry lunch break over):

Adobe
General & Corporate enquiries
https://adobe.allegiancetech.com/cgi-bin/qwebcorporate.dll?Q8CH23
https://adobe.allegiancetech.com/cgi-bin/qwebcorporate.dll?7M5PHU

American Cancer Society
http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/howwehelpyou/app/contact-us.aspx

American Express
http://www.snl.com/IRWeblinkx/EmailPopup.aspx?IID=102700&URL=http://ir.americanexpress.com/&Title=Investor%20Relations

AT&T
Randall Stephenson, AT&T CEO
rs2982@att.com (direct)
randall.stephenson@att.com
https://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=27794

Avon
Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability
avoncr@avon.com
Avon Foundation for Women
info@avonfoundation.org
Media Relations
investor.relations@avon.com.

Verizon
Torod.Neptune@VerizonWireless.com
Chuck.Hamby@VerizonWireless.com
Sharon.Oddy@VerizonWireless.com
Adria.Tomaszewski@VerizonWireless.com

Anonymous hausfrau July 23, 2015 12:31 AM  

Bath and Body Works
http://www.bathandbodyworks.com/helpdesk/index.jsp?display=corp&subdisplay=contact&stillHaveQuestion=yes

March of Dimes
http://www.marchofdimes.org/contact-us.aspx

Susan G. Kommen
http://ww5.komen.org/Contact.aspx

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 23, 2015 12:37 AM  

Mr Rational is Tad

Shut up Tad


AKA disqualify.

I've called in reinforcements from SBPDL.  Hope you enjoy the results.

Blogger Danby July 23, 2015 1:02 AM  

Ooooh, We're so afraid of a bunch of sub-normal IQ Atheists.
Tell me, is your personal army armed with the same winning personality and lack of hygiene you display?

Automatthew, can you spam this fiucktard yet?

Anonymous Anonymous July 23, 2015 1:02 AM  

Ford claims not to support PP but on the old PP giving page, it notes that Ford Motor Company does provide matching contributions.

Blogger SciVo July 23, 2015 1:08 AM  

@ Who Dat:

Another option is that Xerox bundles contributions from individuals.

Anonymous zapbrannigan1 July 23, 2015 1:14 AM  

@Mr. Rational

Look, we're trying to organize a coordinated response to a crime against humanity here. We simply don't have the inclination to explain why you're wrong at this time.

Either take some time to examine your conscience and help us in our efforts, or depart.

That's about the most polite way I can put it.

Blogger SciVo July 23, 2015 1:43 AM  

@ David-093:

I disagree. Why do you think she used plain English for "livers" and "hearts," and then switched to saying "lower extremities" Instead of "legs?"

Are you not aware of the market for foreskins? If not, why did you think the medical establishment is so defensive of circumsion on such weak grounds?

Put two and two together already. #PPGate is perfect.

Blogger Unknown July 23, 2015 1:48 AM  

I've sent another email to Ford's public affairs department highlighting the PP matching donations page. Note, in many cases corporate 'matching donations' programmes are blind on the corporate end, they finance a pool of funds and then employees make donations that are automatically matched without review. That is a useful distinction to make in your (POLITE) letters to these corporations, to not simply address direct corporate giving through their official charitable arms, but also their 'matching funds' slush fund used to augment employee giving. They are two different animals.

Anonymous The Observer July 23, 2015 3:17 AM  

Tad here clearly didn't bother reading any of the papers and just skimmed through.

"ALL of the studies are from India or China."

Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.

So, Indians and Chinese are less honest than White people? Then again, we know SJWs tend to be lily-white. Try reading the papers sometime. The exact causation mechanism is detailed within. Here's a hint: it has to do with hormonal releases during birth or miscarriage.

Didn't read paper, didn't read methodology or controlled variables, mouths off.

"You can't even get the title correct; it's "Reproductive history patterns and long-term mortality rates", nothing at all to do with chidlbed deaths."

Being rational is not reading papers. Maybe you'll find something within...

"With statistical controls for number of pregnancies, birth year and age at last pregnancy, the combination of induced abortion(s) and natural loss(es) was associated with more than three times higher mortality rate than only birth(s). Moderate risks were identified with only induced abortion, only natural loss and having experienced all outcomes compared with only birth(s). Risk of death was more than six times greater among women who had never been pregnant compared with those who only had birth(s). Increased risks of death were 45%, 114% and 191% for 1, 2 and 3 abortions, respectively, compared with no abortions after controlling for other reproductive outcomes and last pregnancy age. Increased risks of death were equal to 44%, 86% and 150% for 1, 2 and 3 natural losses, respectively, compared with none after including statistical controls. Finally, decreased mortality risks were observed for women who had experienced two and three or more births compared with no births."

Then again, Tad's first assertion was that I was telling a complete untruth. Now, he's moving the goalposts and saying the studies are flawed because they don't account for alcohol or tobacco use in the abstracts, because abstracts tell you all the details about a paper. Because, as we know, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

But as we know, SJWs always lie.

PS: correlation of drinking is 15%(5.0 to 9.9 grams per day)-50%(30 grams of alcohol daily), according to study by Wendy Y. Chen, M.D., M.P.H., of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston in Nov 2 issue of Journal of the American Medical Association. Looks like someone's trying to extrapolate that to the >100% risk increase reported in each paper, which makes Tad's assertion hilarious.

Blogger rho July 23, 2015 3:32 AM  

#PPGate made me flip through Planned Parenthood's 990. If you are unsatisfied with emailing possible corporate donors and want to be more tactical, Alinsky the shit out of KPMG's association with Planned Parenthood.

(It probably won't work, but at least you'd be targeting the most vulnerable nerds that keep Planned Parenthood chugging along.)

To address Mr. Rational's arguments, life begins at fertilization. If you doubt that, have a conversation with somebody hanging their childless hopes on IVF.

For bonus points, explain how your gamete-soaked jack rag is equivalent to their $10K+ fertility bill.

Anonymous The Observer July 23, 2015 3:47 AM  

"It's bogus. As a hint to HOW bogus, breast cancer used to be known as the disease of nuns. How many abortions do nuns have again?"

Blogger ate my comment, so I'll be brief. Tad's trying to obfuscate here. Latest study done was in 1968, studying nuns in the US from 1900-1954. Women generally had a) plenty of children and b) no abortions then. "Disease of nuns" reputation is from the 14th-19th centuries. 19th century breast cancer rate amongst nuns ~6%, the same as modern western women. Third world women in the modern day have rate of ~2.7%. Increased rate of breast cancer only found in >39 year old women.

Tad is trying to conflate older early twentieth century nuns - the data taken in the 1968 study was when no one could have abortions - with younger modern women.

But even if we were to accept Tad's premise, he pretends that there cannot be multiple reasons for a causation - that both childlessness and abortion cannot be both risk factors for breast cancer.

SJWs always lie.

Blogger VFM #430 July 23, 2015 4:02 AM  

guess you were just lucky to have a mom that thought you were worth the wait..that extra couple of weeks..to develop into something more then a bunch of crunchy cells ready to be sold for experiments. is it a cadaver of rational thought you borrowed from somewhere? i would dare to bet you also think caviar is tasty. but that's not really ever going to be a FISH. at least the odds are not very good that it would have been viable. or even loved for that matter.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080304093748.htm

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-international-curbs-illegal-caviar.html

Scientifically why would they ever bother setting quotas if its just a bunch of cells?

Silly argument you say. I totally understand why you don't see a moral difference. Its moral indifference. Find a new place argue DNA strings that don't match the carrier/host. claim the parasitic route as well. that THE CAVIAR is just a unwanted virus growing in the womb of the fish.

Genetic testing can be performed on just a single egg of caviar to determine its origin. Credit: Institute for Ocean Conservation Science

How about the human fertilized egg? or perhaps you attended the Dahmer school of higher education.

Blogger CM July 23, 2015 7:36 AM  

So, Indians and Chinese are less honest than White people?

I would like to know if he thinks they are CAPABLE of sound science.

He's a racist.

Blogger Alexander July 23, 2015 8:30 AM  

From Verizon today:

Good evening,
I am writing you today as it has come to light that Verizon has made donations to Planned Parenthood. Recently, distressing news was revealed that Planned Parenthood has engaged in trafficking human organs. One of the most repulsive include a planned parenthood executive explaining to a 'buyer':

“We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

Infant human body parts can only come from infant humans. Does your company support the sale of organs from aborted infants?
Regards,
Alexander


No.
We do support the diverse 501(c)3 charities our employees care about through our suite of matching gifts programs, which were developed to support each employee’s personal commitment to making the world a better place. To see more about our commitment to our employees and our communities, visit http://www.verizon.com/about/responsibility/employees

Blogger Alexander July 23, 2015 8:36 AM  

This is where the bullshit comes in. The link verizon sent me to includes this.

Eligible Organizations:
US: Most U.S. based 501(C)(3) organizations...

Which Planned Parenthood is. So that's convenient.

It also shows just how nifty it is when the government was playing games with 501s and conservative groups. I never thought about it before as I've never looked into corporate matching programs, but it's nifty when the corporations are using a criteria that is set by government when determining where funds go. It's like walking through a sausage factory.

Anonymous GG #34356 July 23, 2015 8:44 AM  

In related news, we really need a better name for this than PPGate. As Nate so eloquently demonstrated above...it sounds lame.

The hashtag is #PPSellsBabyParts

It's a damn good one. I would stick to it instead of trying to make PPGate happen.

It gets better they are following the Breitbart release videos slowly model.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/22/woah-planned-parenthood-tells-congress-future-expose-videos-will-be-even-worse-much-worse/


He said on Hanity (creater of the video) that they have 100 of hours of footage. And about 20 something hours of really bad stuff. Worse than what they already pushed out. They have material to keep it cooking for months according to him.

And in the comments of the Breitbart article.. apparently PP fears they have footage of ripping fetuses apart for organ harvesting at PP.

Blogger Alexander July 23, 2015 9:02 AM  

Ahah! Okay lads, don't let them worm their way out of the funds.

My response to above:

Thank you for your response.

I note in the link you provided that in the United States, under "Eligible Organizations" for the Matching Incentive Program, Verizon allows "most 501(C)(3) organizations"... which would include Planned Parenthood.

Can you confirm if the use of 'most' and not 'all' or 'any' means that Planned Parenthood is explicitly excluded from the list of companies that Verizon will match donations to? Does Verizon consider the ethical and legal practices of an organization when a donation is matched in its name?

Thank you very much,
Alexander


Verizon response:

No, sir. No legitimate registered 501c3 is excluded.



In short, any company that tells you no, but has a matching program... probably does not mean 'no' the way you or I would mean 'no'.

Blogger Unknown July 23, 2015 9:26 AM  

I think the best way to word it isn't to ask if they support it 'of course not, but we support our employees... blah blah blah.', instead ask if they are *comfortable* with it. Remember, personalize it, make use of the Alinsky tactics of the left.

Anonymous 224 July 23, 2015 9:47 AM  

#crunchyBabyGate
#babyOrganGate
#babymeatGate

Anonymous James Parliament July 23, 2015 10:14 AM  

Starbucks, little surprise:

Thank you for contacting Starbucks.

Thank you for contacting us with your concerns regarding our "Partner Match" program. We absolutely respect our customers' broad range of views and assure you that your feedback will be shared with the appropriate team. We are sorry if this impacts you continuing to visit our stores.

If you ever have any questions or concerns in the future, please visit us at customerservice.starbucks.com.

Sincerely,

Katherine C.
customer service

Anonymous James Parliament July 23, 2015 10:15 AM  

Macy's takes the "Matching Funds" out:

Thank you for writing to us and expressing your opinion. Please be aware that Macy's makes no direct contributions to Planned Parenthood. Our company does offer a Matching Gift program which allows our employees (we have a workforce of 167,000 Americans) to apply for a company match to their personal gifts to any charitable organization (defined as any organization organized as a 501c3 under the Internal Revenue Service code). Of the many thousands of employee gifts matches each year across the country, a small handful are to Planned Parenthood. But again, these are not direct contributions from the company. We hope this clarifies the nature of our giving program.

Again, we appreciate the time you took to express your viewpoint.

Corporate Communications
Macy's

Anonymous James Parliament July 23, 2015 10:19 AM  

Coca-Cola flatly denies - no mention of matching funds:

Thank you for contacting us. We appreciate the opportunity to respond.

The Coca-Cola Company does not donate to Planned Parenthood.

Please contact us again should you have additional comments or questions.

Kalee J
Industry and Consumer Affairs
The Coca-Cola Company

Anonymous James Parliament July 23, 2015 10:22 AM  

@Flinders, Cail, et al

Let me know if I should be posting these elsewhere, or if you'll continue gathering them here.

I'd also like to send a message to Matt Walsh, so if you have ideas on how to coordinate that, let me know.

E-mail also works: jamestheparliament at gmail

Anonymous hausfrau July 23, 2015 10:22 AM  

Bath and Body Works responded.


"Dear,



Thank you for following up and contacting us regarding our community involvement at L Brands. Since its inception, the L Brands Foundation has invested more than $160 million in our home office communities.



Our philanthropic efforts represent a rich mixture of backgrounds, insights and perspectives. Our support of Planned Parenthood has been limited to educational programming. We appreciate your feedback and will share it with our community relations team.



Again, we appreciate your inquiry. "


Anonymous Alexander, #10 July 23, 2015 10:28 AM  

James: follow up if they have a matching program, and if they have any sort criteria regarding 501c3 organizations. Verizon flatly denied funds too and didn't mention matching until I pointed it out.

Anonymous Alexander, #10 July 23, 2015 10:42 AM  

Clearly, nobody explained to American Cancer Society nor Bath and Body Works about the fungibility of money.

Blogger Unknown July 23, 2015 10:55 AM  

We knew they'd have a CYA policy in place, right? We know things we didn't know yesterday about how the system works, and knowing how it works is critical to defeating it. So these companies have already set up this weaselly system of "matching funds" to deflect accusations (from either side) of donating to unsavory groups, which lets them say, "We don't contribute to that." That doesn't invalidate the question: "Does XYZ Co. support trafficking in human organs?"

But this also opens up new possibilities. These matching funds campaigns have to be run by someone somewhere. Do they farm it out to a separate organization? If so, that org can be asked the same questions. (I actually thought they all farmed this stuff out to United Way already.) Someone writes the final check to Planned Parenthood and all the other places the employees earmark. Someone distributes the materials to the employees; do these materials list any "common" recipients, and is Planned Parenthood among them? When I worked for a company that invited United Way in (20 years ago), I'm pretty sure they provided a brochure with a couple dozen organizations on it. I think it's unlikely that they just leave it entirely up to the employees to go out and find 501(c)3s on their own.

Also some black knighting: there has to be a completely unacceptable 501(c)3 out there, like "The Hitler's Final Solution Appreciation Society" or something. Anyone who works for one of these companies could try to contribute to something like that and see what happens. Or the (polite) question could be asked: "Will you provide matching funds to any 501(c)3 your employees choose, or are there exceptions?"

Anonymous Alexander, #10 July 23, 2015 11:00 AM  

http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos

If the Final Solution Appreciation Society exists, that is where it lurks.

Of course, one doesn't get to be on that list without being vetted by our beloved fed.gov, but it's there for the searching.

Blogger Unknown July 23, 2015 11:03 AM  

James,

Josh created ppgate.blogspot.com, so that might be the best place to collect new info, since comment threads tend to get stale after a couple days, and if Vox continues posting about this, the info will get spread across posts.

Also, Google/Blogger is obviously not on our side, so while they generally seem to leave blogs alone.... if people think there's a need, I could setup a backup repository on my own server.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy July 23, 2015 11:03 AM  

'Education' by PP is either a way to increase PP's name recognition or pro-chopping propaganda in itself. Or pro-promiscuity propaganda, so more young human females will become potential customers.

'Prenatal education' by PP is anti-natal propaganda.

@The Observer: Thanks!

Anonymous James Parliament July 23, 2015 11:14 AM  

Cail,

For some reason, my letter from the Cancer Society kept getting eaten there. Twice I posted it, it was up, and minutes later it was down.

I'm not savvy enough to know what that means, but that's why I came back here to post the other letters.

I'll head over there and try posting them again.

Blogger SirHamster July 23, 2015 11:27 AM  

"Will you provide matching funds to any 501(c)3 your employees choose, or are there exceptions?"

Reviewing my workplace's charity matching fund, they specifically restrict the category of religious/advocacy organisation.

Any corporation who says they match *some* but not *all* employee gifts has chosen to use their discretion when matching funds.

Blogger Unknown July 23, 2015 11:30 AM  

Our support of Planned Parenthood has been limited to educational programming.

These dodges are such utter bullshit. We went through this back when ACORN was in the news and some major Catholic charities were found to be contributing to it. They cut that connection, but some of us looked through their lists of recipients, and it was easy to find groups that were basically fronts for left-wing and pro-abortion groups.

They play the game by dividing their organizations up into different parts with different names and 501(c)3 accounts, but they may operate out of the same office, and they operate in a tangled web of left-wing groups that all promote each other to the same clientele. So you look at their list and see a group called "Chicago Housewives Against Poverty," whose website says they do nothing but run a food pantry and literacy training for poor people. But when you dig further, you notice they have the same street address as Planned Parenthood or some other pro-abortion group, so when the poor people come in to pick up their canned goods, they get to stand in a waiting room filled with pro-abortion propaganda.

That's how this stuff works. Keeping the money separate on the books is meaningless. But I suppose the person writing the email may actually believe it, so again, don't be accusatory.

Anonymous Alexander, #10 July 23, 2015 11:37 AM  

There is a very valuable lesson here though - a company that says it stands for something, STANDS for something. Clearly, it is so easy to dodge that no company needs to explicitly be for or against anything and they can still support or oppose it. So when Chik-fil-A supports a Christian program in its own name, or Starbucks comes out wanting to talk race with you... they are going far beyond what they need to do to take that stance.

So next time some leftist tries to play down a corporate donation as just one of those things you do in a community, remember that like always, they are lying.

Blogger Unknown July 23, 2015 11:38 AM  

Thanks, Alexander. I searched there for "Nazi" and only got groups with names containing that string, like "Ashkenazi." Now, surely someone has tried to get a 501(c)3 for a neo-Nazi newsletter, right? So those must get denied, and as you say, the feds do the filtering so these corporate matching funds get funneled to the proper destinations without the companies getting their hands dirty.

I'll try some other searches though. Someone has to have gotten something more subtle through.

Anonymous Sevron July 23, 2015 11:49 AM  

Hey "Rational", if it doesn't have a CNS capable of sensation, what are the organs PP is harvesting connecting to and being operated by? Magic? Fairy dust? Super logic from super smart guys like you? Help me out, would ya?

Anonymous Sevron July 23, 2015 11:51 AM  

Hey "Rational", if it doesn't have a CNS capable of sensation, what are the organs PP is harvesting connecting to and being operated by? Magic? Fairy dust? Super logic from super smart guys like you? Help me out, would ya?

Blogger Russell July 23, 2015 12:11 PM  

I'm impressed there are far more responses from all these different companies, compared to the dead silence coming from Tor.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy July 23, 2015 1:14 PM  

@Cail Corishev:

An automatic URL-grabber bot to make sure links that are posted in comments on PPGate-relevant blogs and blog posts would be useful. I don't think it's appropriate to automatically shovel them into archive.is, but fetching them to your own server is much better than doing nothing and letting the enemy put them down the memory hole.

Anonymous BGS July 23, 2015 2:29 PM  

One of PP's biggest scams is putting teens on very low dose birth control that will fail unless taken at the same time of day.


"ALL of the studies are from India or China." "So, Indians and Chinese are less honest than White people?"

There is a Chinese study liking autism to Ultrasounds that I think is credible because it would be impossible to reproduce in US/EU. The slow introduction of Ultrasound to Chinese medicine gave them the ability to notice long term affects.

Blogger David July 23, 2015 4:25 PM  

Got some responses. This one's from Verizon:

" We support our employees by making matching gifts to the qualified 501(c)3 charities they care about. Our matching gifts programs support Verizon employees’ commitment to making the world a better place. To see more about our commitment to our employees and our communities, check out: http://www.verizon.com/about/responsibility/employees

While we do not support Planned Parenthood as a corporation, some employees may make private donations to the organization and request matching funds through our employee matching program."

This is from Clorox:

"Thank you for reaching out to The Clorox Company regarding your concern about support for Planned Parenthood.

Community involvement is an integral part of our business and is carried out through a holistic program of grant-making, volunteerism and leadership in community service. In support of this goal, the company provides employees the opportunity to make contributions to nonprofit organizations of their choice, which are matched through The Clorox Company Foundation through our annual giving campaign. While the Foundation does not select these organizations, we recognize that Clorox employees choose to support many different causes they care about.

We are proud our employees have long fostered a culture of personal generosity by donating their time and money to help others. Although the causes they choose to support do not necessarily reflect the views or focus areas of The Clorox Company Foundation, we continually encourage employee giving.

Again, thank you for voicing your concerns at this time.

Consumer Services"

Anonymous Kiwi the Geek July 23, 2015 4:31 PM  

Vox said in the OP that it's hard to choke off government funding. But after this gets going, couldn't we do the same thing with politicians? Find out how everybody voted last time PP funding was on the table. Email the ones who voted yes just like we're doing with corporations. After that ball is rolling, email the ones who voted no, asking them to introduce a bill to defund PP.

It seems like politicians would be just as concerned about public approval as corporations are. And if the strategy works for PP funding, maybe it would work for *any* issue where the general public opposes what government is doing. Like immigration, or 0bamacare.

Heading over to the ppgate blog to find out the updated emailing info.

Anonymous Lt. Greyman, NVA July 23, 2015 4:39 PM  

I'm Pro-choice, for negros. Pro-Life for Whites

Anonymous NCMike July 23, 2015 4:41 PM  

Here is what I received back from a Wells Fargo rep:

"We received your inquiry regarding Planned Parenthood and appreciate having the chance to respond. In 2014, Wells Fargo contributed more than $281 million to 17,100 community nonprofits nationwide to help create more resilient, sustainable communities and a healthy economy. As part of our giving, Wells Fargo invested $49.4 million to support health and human services, including nonprofits that provide important medical services to women in our communities. Planned Parenthood was a very small recipient of grants in two of our markets, though we do not provide any funding to the nonprofit at the corporate or national level. We understand this issue can be divisive and difficult, with many different community perspectives. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to address your concerns. If you need more information about this recent news coverage, we encourage you to contact Planned Parenthood directly. Thank you for your business."

Anonymous The One July 23, 2015 5:03 PM  

Not sure if I should be emailing someone who is compiling a list, but here is the response I received from evil Clorox.

Thank you for reaching out to The Clorox Company regarding your concern about support for Planned Parenthood.
Community involvement is an integral part of our business and is carried out through a holistic program of grant-making, volunteerism and leadership in community service. In support of this goal, the company provides employees the opportunity to make contributions to nonprofit organizations of their choice, which are matched through The Clorox Company Foundation through our annual giving campaign. While the Foundation does not select these organizations, we recognize that Clorox employees choose to support many different causes they care about.

We are proud our employees have long fostered a culture of personal generosity by donating their time and money to help others. Although the causes they choose to support do not necessarily reflect the views or focus areas of The Clorox Company Foundation, we continually encourage employee giving.

Again, thank you for voicing your concerns at this time.

Sincerely,
Consumer Services
Recently, a Planned Parenthood executive said the following:

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

Does Clorox support trafficking in human organs?

Blogger Unknown July 23, 2015 6:08 PM  

I spoke with a gentleman at the Ford Customer Relationship Center, not giving a name in case the usual SJW's try and harass him. According to him, Ford Motor Company does *not* match charitable contributions to outside organizations, they only match contributions to the Ford Fund which does *not* contribute anything to Planned Parenthood. He was completely baffled as to why Ford Motor Company would appear on the PP website as supporting them and promised to formally notify his superiors about that misrepresentation.

So I think we can strike Ford from the list here.

Anonymous James Parliament July 23, 2015 7:29 PM  

@The One

Check out ppgate.blogspot.com. We're loading them up there.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 23, 2015 7:43 PM  

Edward Dunai July 23, 2015 6:08 PM, thanks.

Blogger David July 23, 2015 8:22 PM  

Got this from Nike just now:

"Thank you for your inquiry.

NIKE, Inc does not have a partnership with Planned Parenthood. However, all NIKE, Inc. employees are eligible for participation in our Employee Matching Gift Program and as part of that program, NIKE, Inc. matches employee contributions to organizations, one of which is the Columbia Willamette Chapter of Planned Parenthood.

Kind Regards,

NIKE, Inc. Investor Relations"

So, according to this email, Nike doesn't donate to PP as a company, but they will match the donations their employees make.

Anonymous Anonymous July 23, 2015 9:41 PM  

I have copied the contact info gleaned from this thread into the original list.

Adobe
@adobe
http://www.adobe.com/news-room/social-media.html (list of adobe related twitter accounts, facebook, blogs, instagram, etc)
http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pr-contacts.html

American Cancer Society
@AmericanCancer
http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/howwehelpyou/app/contact-us.aspx

American Express
@AmericanExpress
http://www.snl.com/IRWeblinkx/EmailPopup.aspx?IID=102700&URL=http://ir.americanexpress.com/&Title=Investor%20Relations
AT&T
@ATT
https://www.facebook.com/ATT
Randall Stephenson, AT&T CEO rs2982@att.com (direct)
randall.stephenson@att.com
https://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=27794

Avon
@AvonInsider
Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability avoncr@avon.com
Avon Foundation for Women info@avonfoundation.org
Media Relations investor.relations@avon.com.
Bank of America
@BofA_Community
http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/files/doc_library/file/Newsroom_Media_Contacts_page.pdf
BofA Media Relations - Arts and Culture
Diane Wagner
Phone: 312.992.2370
diane.wagner@bankofamerica.com



Bath & Body Works
@bathbodyworks
http://www.bathandbodyworks.com/helpdesk/index.jsp?display=corp&subdisplay=contact&stillHaveQuestion=yes

Ben & Jerry's
@benandjerrys

Clorox
@Clorox

Coca-Cola
@CocaCola

Converse
@Converse

Deutsche Bank
@DeutscheBank

Dockers
@Dockers

Energizer
@Energizer

Expedia
@Expedia
ExxonMobil
@exxonmobil

Fannie Mae
@FannieMae

Ford
@Ford

Groupon
@Groupon

Intuit
@Intuit


Johnson & Johnson
@JNJCares
Media Contacts - Ernie Knewitz - Vice President, Global Media Relations - eknewitz@its.jnj.com
Amy Jo Meyer - Director, Corporate Media Relations - ameyer15@its.jnj.com

La Senza
@LaSenza

Levi Straus
@LeviStraussCo

Liberty Mutual
@LibertyMutual

Macy’s
@Macys

March of Dimes
@MarchofDimes
http://www.marchofdimes.org/contact-us.aspx

Microsoft
@Microsoft
Corporate Citizenship - cause@microsoft.com
Press contact - rrt@waggeneredstrom.com

Morgan Stanley
@MorganStanley
media relations - mediainquiries@morganstanley.com
individual investors - indivfeedback@ms.com
client advocate - ClientAdvocate@morganstanley.com

Nike
@Nike
Media relations - media.relations@nike.com
Investor relations - Investor.Relations@nike.com

Oracle
@Oracle

PepsiCo
@Pepsi
PepsiCo Corporate Media Inquiries - pepsicomediarelations@pepsico.com

Pfizer
@Pfizer

Progressive
@ask_progressive
@itsFlo

Starbucks
@Starbucks

Susan G. Komen
@SusanGKomen
http://ww5.komen.org/Contact.aspx

Tostitos
@tostitos

Unilever
@Unilever

United Way
@UnitedWay

Verizon
@Verizon
Torod.Neptune@VerizonWireless.com
Chuck.Hamby@VerizonWireless.com
Sharon.Oddy@VerizonWireless.com
Adria.Tomaszewski@VerizonWireless.com

Wells Fargo
@WellsFargo

Xerox
@XeroxCorp
Carl Langsenkamp
Xerox Corporation
(585) 423-5782 (o)
(585) 261-8632 (m)"

Anonymous Anonymous July 23, 2015 10:03 PM  

I'm going to start putting these into a google doc. About to share to some FB groups that have thousands of members, and they're not inactive online either.

Question: How do we want to respond to responses? Point out that money given to them even if designated for "education" or whatever allows PP to allocate more of their general or undesignated donations towards abortion and organ harvesting?

Blogger Rantor July 23, 2015 10:08 PM  

So being SJWs, it seems that PP lied about some of the companies supporting them. A few claim they have no record of donations in the last 20 years. Coke and Ford made similar claims. Some companies give matching grants when their employees give... They should still be targeted for supporting #PPSellsBabyParts. Ask if their corporate policy allows them to support felonious organizations...

Anonymous Flinders July 23, 2015 11:02 PM  

Here are some more:

I have a google doc going and I'm going to include quotes and sample emails in it to help turn this into a production line. There is also a simple thing we could do to spread the emails. Make people whose first names begin with the A,C,E etc. email companies from top and B,D,F and so on start from the bottom.

Again Xerox and it seems Coca Cola are not funding PP.

Also agree to stick with the PP tag already being used because GG knows you don't split the tags AND I'm so sick of adding Gate to controversies.

Oracle
oraclesales_us@oracle.com

PepsiCo (Pepsi & Tostitos)
pepsicomediarelations@pepsico.com
FLNAFrito-LayMediaServices@pepsico.com

Pfizer
https://www.pfizer.com/contact/email_contact?inquiry=General%20Company%20Information

Progressive
investor_relations@progressive.com

Starbucks
http://customerservice.starbucks.com/app/contact/ask_company_info/session/L3RpbWUvMTQzNzYzNDEzNC9zaWQvdFpFbWYzc20%3D


Unilever
investor.relations@unilever.com
http://www.unilever.com/contact/contact-form/


United Way
(scroll to the bottom for contact form)
http://www.unitedway.org/contact-us



Wells Fargo
info@wellsfargo.com

I used the investor links where I could as they might take more immediate notice than through general customer portals.

Blogger David July 23, 2015 11:13 PM  

It's surprising that Coke doesn't support Planned Murderhood considering how liberal they are.

Anonymous Jonathan July 23, 2015 11:26 PM  

What about companies that "force" employees to donate to The United Way? Isn't that just a hidden way of funneling money to PP?

Anonymous Ain July 24, 2015 12:04 AM  

"Our philanthropic efforts represent a rich mixture of backgrounds, insights and perspectives. Our support of Planned Parenthood has been limited to educational programming. We appreciate your feedback and will share it with our community relations team."

The problem here is that it really doesn't matter what the money is donated for. Money given to a certain area frees up funds to be used in others. It's like giving an unemployed alcoholic $10 to spend on food not beer. If they already had $10, now they get to buy both.

Blogger David July 24, 2015 12:57 AM  

"What about companies that "force" employees to donate to The United Way? Isn't that just a hidden way of funneling money to PP? "

One battle at a time.

Anonymous Flinders July 24, 2015 1:12 AM  

Here you are:

http://pastebin.com/TcSf5KRi

That's complete, feel free to copy, paste, clean up and expand.

I couldn't find good contact emails for some like Deutche Bank

I've sent a number of companies emails and haven't received responses yet.

Blogger David July 24, 2015 1:45 AM  

Twitter is going ballistic with this. If you haven't sent tweets to these companies do so immediately and under the #PPGate and #DefundPP hashtags.

Blogger M Cephas July 24, 2015 4:53 AM  

@Mr. Rational

"Something which has never had a central nervous system capable of conciousness or even sensation has never been a "someone""

Before you start redefining what qualifies as "someone", you might want to take the time to realize that abortions happen at different stages. That includes first, second, and third trimester, as well as partial birth abortions. PP has had a hand in all of them.

You know full well a human embryo is an individual human being. When you were an embryo in your mother's womb, you were not someone else. You were you. And if she killed you, you would be dead. Whether or not you could feel the sensation of being killed or not, is not something I hear very many argue about. Not a lot of "we shouldn't do abortions because it might be painful to the baby".

Also, an organism with a single set of chromosomes, that is obviously not a developing baby, you consider that as much of a human being as an actual developing human being, which is what an embryo is?

"I don't see a moral difference between that and donating the tissues of an aborted embryo."

In that case, I'd like to donate your body on behalf of scientific research. You have no say in the matter.

That is what you call a lack of a moral difference.

"People will resort to letting defective or unwanted infants die as they did before the orphanage movement. You'll wish PP was still around."

There is nothing that could make me wish PP was still around. If you're suggesting a more sinister evil will come about due to the absence of PP, then you're free to let your imagination run wild.

Anonymous Donn #0114 July 24, 2015 12:53 PM  

The sad part for anyone being mistaken for Tad is that means they are indistinguishable from a diseased, deranged, homosexual.

Either way he's got problems and threatening to get 'back up' from SBPDL? Yikes! I'm not sure if we were supposed to laugh or what. Was he trying to be funny. It's not Hogan's Heroes time here. It's too soon to laugh about this even with Tad or Tad like weirdos.

Anonymous Anonymous July 24, 2015 1:34 PM  

""Our philanthropic efforts represent a rich mixture of backgrounds, insights and perspectives. Our support of Planned Parenthood has been limited to educational programming. We appreciate your feedback and will share it with our community relations team."

Ain,

It's not the money (or how it gets there), it's associating the company name with PP.

--------------------------------
Dear company-x,

Thank you for your reply, but your reply left me puzzled.

By giving money to PP, even if only for educational programs, you are associating your company name with PP. That association would seem to imply that company-x is OK with PP's trafficking in human organs.

Does company-x condone the trafficking of human organs?

If not, why does company-x continue to associate their name with an organization that traffics in human organs?

I understand you may not have been aware of PP's activities. The revelation that they have been trafficking in human organs has come as a shock, but now that you do know the extent of PP's organ trafficking activities, do you plan to continue to associate company-x's name with PP?
----------------------------------


Anonymous Mr. Rational July 25, 2015 4:26 PM  

Look, we're trying to organize a coordinated response to a crime against humanity here.

It isn't a crime (it's a mode of what ALL human societies have done out of necessity since time immemorial), and it is most often FOR humanity.  How many Down's children can an impovershed society support and still fight for its freedom?

We simply don't have the inclination to explain why you're wrong at this time.

I've been listening since the Roe v. Wade in 1973, and in all those 42 years you haven't been able to make a coherent argument for the anti-abortion case.  "Disinclined" means "unwilling to defend the essential premise".

Either take some time to examine your conscience and help us in our efforts, or depart.

Let me quote Anonymous from the SBPDL thread:

"The one aspect of conservative culture I've never been comfortable with is the dogmatic, unreasoning emnity to abortion that so many conservatives seem to be afflicted with. The abortion of black fetuses is a great accomplishment that we should rejoice over and celebrate, not bewail and try to prevent. God allows you to fight back against those who would wipe you out, and blacks have been attacking us for decades. The promotion of black abortion is simple self-defense."

Anonymous at SCC helps explain why.

Stop trying to sell out to the enemy for the sake of "principles", okay?

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 25, 2015 4:28 PM  

So, Indians and Chinese are less honest than White people?

They have different patterns of disease due to different diets and lifestyles.  For an extreme example, consider the risk of HIV from heterosexual coitus between European-Americans vs. Haitians.

Try reading the papers sometime.

Why don't you do that yourself?  Here's a quote from the Danish study:

"The World Health Organization defines a ‘maternal death’ as one that occurs during pregnancy or within 42 days of termination (through delivery or abortion, spontaneous or induced) from any cause related to or exacerbated by the pregnancy or its management, not including accidental or incidental causes.4 By contrast, ‘pregnancy-associated death’ is defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Centers for Disease Control in the USA as any death during pregnancy or within 1 year of the pregnancy outcome irrespective of cause."

In other words, nothing whatsoever to do with breast cancer (which takes many years to develop).  Probably EVERYTHING to do with lifestyle, since being without children allows much more time to indulge in risky behaviors.  You have cause and effect reversed:  abortion is not the cause of the higher risk of death, it's the effect of the risky behaviors that caused the unwanted pregnancy to begin with.  In other words, not an argument of any sort against having an abortion if circumstances call for it.

"Risk of death was more than six times greater among women who had never been pregnant"

In other words, getting pregnant and aborting reduces risk vs. never getting pregnant.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 25, 2015 4:30 PM  

But even if we were to accept Tad's premise, he pretends that there cannot be multiple reasons for a causation

Name-calling AND projection.  Worthy of an SJW (which I am not and never have been).  BTW, watching this crowd get all rhetorical when dialectic is thrown at you is hilarious.  How can you fight SJW vices while practicing them yourselves?

How about the human fertilized egg?

About half of them never make it to term by natural loss.  Nature/God (pick one) obviously finds them very cheap and expendable.  Venerating them is contrary to any rational natural philosophy.

Hey "Rational", if it doesn't have a CNS capable of sensation, what are the organs PP is harvesting connecting to and being operated by? Magic? Fairy dust?

Are you really that ignorant of physiology?  The only organs that need the CNS to operate are muscles, and not all of them either; the digestive system runs just fine without outside commands, and the liver simply doesn't care.  The nerves that fire the heart can and do operate independently.

Speaking of willful ignorance, take a look at what happens to civilization when an area becomes heavily Black and ponder what another 13 million of them would have done to the USA already.  Planned Parenthood may have literally saved this country.

You know full well a human embryo is an individual human being.

Organism != being.

When you were an embryo in your mother's womb, you were not someone else.

There was no "I" at that time.  The individual arises from the organism, and can pre-decease it (brain death).  You're making a false equivalence.

In that case, I'd like to donate your body on behalf of scientific research. You have no say in the matter.

You can have it after I'm done with it.

I've gone on long enough here and haven't had time to read the other comments, so I'm going to shut up and read.

Blogger M Cephas July 26, 2015 2:04 AM  

@Mr. Rational

"Organism != being"

I said a human embryo is an individual human being. What you said was not at all an intelligible response to that. You are an organism right now. If you forget that "being" and "organism" are synonyms for a second, would you please explain to me how what you said makes any sense whatsoever?

Take the definition of being as "existence" or "the nature or essence of a person" and your human genome qualifies, in my opinion.

"There was no "I" at that time. The individual arises from the organism, and can pre-decease it (brain death). You're making a false equivalence."

The individual is already there. You are not your brain anymore than you are any other organ of your body. It all developed from the same genome, the same code, and does not exist without it. You do not exist without it.

So that embryo in your mother's womb was in fact you.

"You can have it after I'm done with it."

If I had to get your permission it would not be morally equivalent.

Anonymous Anonymous July 26, 2015 1:32 PM  

Agreed. Heck, I'd just say we're trying to inform / enlighten and leave it at that. If, faced with certain info their conscience (or concern for reputation) drives them to action, well ... mission accomplished.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 26, 2015 4:52 PM  

I said a human embryo is an individual human being.

Yes, you did.  It amounts to assuming your conclusion, and it's blatantly not true.  A mouse is more of an indivdual than a human embryo; it has a fully-functioning mammalian nervous system and it can feel emotions and sensations.  An embryo does not and cannot.  Be it human, there is nobody there yet.  Just like a brain-dead human organism has nobody there, the embryo has nobody there.  Once there is someone there, THEN we can legitimately concern ourselves with their interests.

If you forget that "being" and "organism" are synonyms for a second

This is bound to shock you, but being and organism have vast and important differences in meaning.  Will you PLEASE stop trying to use the Leftard method of re-defining common terms to win your argument?

You are an organism right now.

Thank you for that flash of the blatantly obvious.  Maybe it might be possible for you to grasp the detail that "human beings" are a proper subset of "organisms".  All human beings are organisms.  Only a very few organisms are human beings.

Take the definition of being as "existence" or "the nature or essence of a person" and your human genome qualifies, in my opinion.

So, what's your position on voting rights for the brain-dead?

The individual is already there. You are not your brain anymore than you are any other organ of your body. It all developed from the same genome, the same code, and does not exist without it. You do not exist without it.

So you're saying that if I got a transplant of a kidney, liver or heart (which could well be in my future), I wouldn't be the same individual?  You really are nuts.

You stated your error straight out when you wrote "you are not your brain".  That is false.  You do not exist as a human being without your brain.  Lose that, and what's left is meat.  Or tissues and organs with value for therapy (like the bone graft I received) and research (like the cells that Planned Parenthood is being excoriated for preserving and making available instead of flushing), but still... not a human being in any sense worth taking seriously.

So that embryo in your mother's womb was in fact you.

No.  I arose out of it and I could have come from no other, but there was no "I" there any more than there was before sperm met egg.

If I had to get your permission it would not be morally equivalent.

There is absolute moral equivalence.  With neither an embryo nor a corpse is there anyone to ask.

Blogger M Cephas July 27, 2015 4:57 AM  

"Yes, you did. It amounts to assuming your conclusion, and it's blatantly not true. A mouse is more of an indivdual than a human embryo; it has a fully-functioning mammalian nervous system and it can feel emotions and sensations. An embryo does not and cannot. Be it human, there is nobody there yet."

It really is nothing more than your own opinion on what you want to consider a human being. You are not making scientific arguments, but attempting philosophical ones. How do you know there is nobody there yet? At what point do you consider somebody there?

"Just like a brain-dead human organism has nobody there, the embryo has nobody there."

You have somebody incapable of doing certain things, incapable of living on their own, incapable of responses. But you still have somebody there. That is not "nobody" because they can't function completely.

"Once there is someone there, THEN we can legitimately concern ourselves with their interests."

Are you now suggesting you can do whatever you want to a person in a vegetative state?

"This is bound to shock you, but being and organism have vast and important differences in meaning. Will you PLEASE stop trying to use the Leftard method of re-defining common terms to win your argument?"

It depends on how you use the term being. Though there is nothing vast about it. But I didn't redefine anything. Use your dictionary if you don't believe me, instead of resorting to ad hominem.

"Thank you for that flash of the blatantly obvious. Maybe it might be possible for you to grasp the detail that "human beings" are a proper subset of "organisms". All human beings are organisms. Only a very few organisms are human beings."

I'm not the one that said "organism != being". You can change what you said to "human being" now, but don't act like you said something you didn't.

"So, what's your position on voting rights for the brain-dead?"

Well if they are the proper age to vote, and a citizen, they have that right. A lack of ability to act on a right does not mean I don't have it.

"So you're saying that if I got a transplant of a kidney, liver or heart (which could well be in my future), I wouldn't be the same individual? You really are nuts."

How did you get that from "you are not your brain any more than any other organ of your body"?

"You stated your error straight out when you wrote "you are not your brain". That is false. You do not exist as a human being without your brain. Lose that, and what's left is meat."

Dying makes you dead. It does not make you not a human being. You lose your brain, you die. You do not cease to be a human being. You also die when killed as an embryo.

"not a human being in any sense worth taking seriously."

I don't care if you personally don't think it should be taken seriously. It's nothing more than your opinion.

"No. I arose out of it and I could have come from no other, but there was no "I" there any more than there was before sperm met egg."

You did not arise out of it. You were it. Being in an early stage of development does not change that. Before sperm met egg, there was no you, therefore no possibility for development.

"There is absolute moral equivalence. With neither an embryo nor a corpse is there anyone to ask."

Which is why I said "if I had to get your permission it would not be morally equivalent".

Blogger David July 28, 2015 7:04 PM  

Progressive has replied:

"Thanks for contacting us.

Progressive does not direct funding to any charitable organization. We do, however, through our foundation match the charitable giving of our employees to any organization that is an eligible 501(c)(3) recipient. So in short, Progressive does not support Planned Parenthood or any other organization directly, but will support the very diverse contributions made by our employees. We do not tell employees how they should or should not use their judgment in supporting their causes. This policy has been well regarded in as much as we are one of a few companies that is completely transparent and the fact we do not support any cause as a matter of company policy.

You can view here the over 2500 charitable organizations to which the Progressive Foundation provided matching funds to in 2011 as reported by 2ndvote.com."

Blogger David July 28, 2015 7:06 PM  

Morgan Stanley:

"Thank you for your email message and patience in awaiting our response.

The guidelines established for the firm’s philanthropic arm, The Morgan Stanley Foundation, stipulate that the foundation does not directly provide funding to organizations for programs related to reproductive issues. However, Morgan Stanley’s giving guidelines support employee match requests for recognized 501c3 organizations. We also provide small grants to organizations where our employees invest their time through our Volunteer Incentive Program.

For information regarding The Morgan Stanley Foundation and other philanthropic and volunteer activities, please refer to the Giving Back section of our website at http://www.morganstanley.com/about-us/giving-back/.

Sincerely,

Morgan Stanley"

And this from Nike:

"Thank you for your inquiry.

NIKE, Inc does not have a partnership with Planned Parenthood. However, all NIKE, Inc. employees are eligible for participation in our Employee Matching Gift Program and as part of that program, NIKE, Inc. matches employee contributions to organizations, one of which is the Columbia Willamette Chapter of Planned Parenthood.

Kind Regards,
NIKE, Inc. Investor Relations"

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 282 of 282

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts