NFL Pink

[ayin jade]

Giving money to Planned Parenthood for something other than abortion frees money to PP for other uses, including their abortion programs.

[MorningGlory]

I thought the football players wearing pink yesterday were doing a good thing. I remember remarking the same to my daughter (a football nut!) that 'it takes a real man to wear pink'. It's not even so much about the money but also about raising awareness...especially among men. Why trash these guys for doing something positive? I don't get it.

[winsomebulldog]

Giving money to Planned Parenthood for something other than abortion frees money to PP for other uses, including their abortion programs.

I don't know that this is true. Basically, I just think that they'd have less money to go around everywhere, including the handful (and if you read the Komen Foundation links I posted earlier you'll see it's a whopping 20 nationwide) of facilities that provide the Komen funded services to women who desperately need them.

Besides all that, your argument is a little bit naive as well. You fund all sorts of potentially objectionable things every single day, whether you realize or admit it or not.

Here is a list of a few instances:

If you shop at any store that sells hard liquor (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Meijer, pretty much any grocery store) you are contributing to the problem of alcoholism by funding their liquor department.

If you have ever rented a movie from any place that also rents adult films, or even objectionable ones, you have contributed funds to that smut.

If you have ever bought gas at a gas station that sells lottery tickets, you have helped fund the lottery.

I personally believe animal testing is morally, ethically, and in every other way wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority, if not all, of the medications I take (including those that are fighting my cancer) were tested on animals long before they ever made it to a human trial. And I do my best not to think about how many animals have been tortured for the sake of finding out what would happen if some total idiot poured an entire bottle of shampoo, or soap, or other "beauty" product into their eyes. Yet I still take my medicines. I like to buy products that haven't been tested on animals, but that just isn't always possible. So it's a compromise I make and I'd be willing to bet you do too.

And, as man said, if you pay taxes you're already funding Planned Parenthood, and not just the breast health and treatment portion of the organization. You are funding abortions, whether you like it or not.

The list could potentially go on and on. In the world we live in today, it is almost impossible to avoid even the slightest connection to some organization or practice that we disagree with. The best we can hope for is to avoid direct contributions to these things.

[winsomebulldog]

I thought the football players wearing pink yesterday were doing a good thing. I remember remarking the same to my daughter (a football nut!) that 'it takes a real man to wear pink'. It's not even so much about the money but also about raising awareness...especially among men. Why trash these guys for doing something positive? I don't get it.

This is my point exactly. The pink is about awareness. People see it and think, "wow, when was the last time I had a mammogram," or "I need to ask my doctor about having tests done." Or maybe they see the pink and think they'd like to donate to some breast cancer research program, whether it's the Komen Foundation or something else. Because though the Susan G. Komen Foundation started the whole pink for breast cancer thing, it's moved far beyond them now. It's the universal symbol for breast cancer awareness, period. What really got me, though, was the "anti-masculinity month" comment. I just don't get that at all. I see nothing "anti-masculine" about it. The color is just a color used to bring awareness to a specific issue, not some definition of a person. As many of the women on the Cancer Survivors Network will say, they don't wear the pink because they are not cancer. It does not define them. (And I'm talking about year round, not for special events.) We all want to raise awareness about breast cancer, and any other cancer for that matter. I just don't understand why the NFL choosing to play a role in this cause is such an issue.

I agree that much of the pink stuff (not just NFL items) is overpriced. And often, far too little of the proceeds actually goes to cancer research. But as you said, it's not just about the money, it's about awareness and you get that free when you see all those football players sporting hot pink! And frankly, I think ALL the NFL stuff is insanely expensive. But then, I'm cheap.

[Axxman]

Planned Parenthood receives government grants.

If you pay taxes, you are funding Planned Parenthood.

Ummm...its the law that I must pay taxes. I vote in order to put people in office that won't use my tax dollars to fund killing babies.

It is not the law that I must support a breast cancer foundation that financially supports the killing of babies....especially in light of the fact that there are charitable organizations out there that do not support abortion.

[Axxman]

I thought the football players wearing pink yesterday were doing a good thing. I remember remarking the same to my daughter (a football nut!) that 'it takes a real man to wear pink'. It's not even so much about the money but also about raising awareness...especially among men. Why trash these guys for doing something positive? I don't get it.

People who have their head so buried in the sand that they are unaware of breast cancer are probably not watching NFL football on Sunday.

I am trashing the concept because it is a sham. If the NFL really cared about the problem they wouldn't be spending $10 million dollars to fund this pink campaign..called "A Crucial Catch"...they would be donating money. The NFL could easily donate $100 million dollars to cancer research...instead they chose to dress men in neon pink accessories and sell stuff to force the average american to foot the bill.

Again, pink is historically a mens color, and I have no problem with the color pink. However, wearing flaming, neon, teenage girl pink to support a group that has donated millions of dollars to planned parenthood...thats a whole different story in my book.

[Axxman]

I don't know that this is true. Basically, I just think that they'd have less money to go around everywhere, including the handful (and if you read the Komen Foundation links I posted earlier you'll see it's a whopping 20 nationwide) of facilities that provide the Komen funded services to women who desperately need them.

Besides all that, your argument is a little bit naive as well. You fund all sorts of potentially objectionable things every single day, whether you realize or admit it or not.

Here is a list of a few instances:

If you shop at any store that sells hard liquor (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Meijer, pretty much any grocery store) you are contributing to the problem of alcoholism by funding their liquor department.

If you have ever rented a movie from any place that also rents adult films, or even objectionable ones, you have contributed funds to that smut.

If you have ever bought gas at a gas station that sells lottery tickets, you have helped fund the lottery.

I personally believe animal testing is morally, ethically, and in every other way wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority, if not all, of the medications I take (including those that are fighting my cancer) were tested on animals long before they ever made it to a human trial. And I do my best not to think about how many animals have been tortured for the sake of finding out what would happen if some total idiot poured an entire bottle of shampoo, or soap, or other "beauty" product into their eyes. Yet I still take my medicines. I like to buy products that haven't been tested on animals, but that just isn't always possible. So it's a compromise I make and I'd be willing to bet you do too.

And, as man said, if you pay taxes you're already funding Planned Parenthood, and not just the breast health and treatment portion of the organization. You are funding abortions, whether you like it or not.

The list could potentially go on and on. In the world we live in today, it is almost impossible to avoid even the slightest connection to some organization or practice that we disagree with. The best we can hope for is to avoid direct contributions to these things.

Here is my question...what if you had an option? If you had an option to buy video's from a store that didn't sell smut..would you choose it? If you had an option to avoid supporting animal testing, or the lottery, or alcoholism...would you choose to shop elsewhere? Are you happy that your taxes, in part, are awarded to planned parenthood??? Then why in the world are you so gung-ho to support and make excuses for a supposed breast cancer fund donating millions of dollars to an organization that supports the killing of innocent life???

Like it or not...if you give someone millions of dollars to conduct breast exams...it frees up millions of dollars for them to conduct other business like providing abortion assisatance, passing out condoms to more kids, and pretty much pushing their liberal agenda even further. The Komen foundation supports that. I don't...and quite frankly I don't know of any Christians that do.

We can disagree all day on "anti-masculinity" ( I personally think the lib agenda has been trying to blur the lines between male/female for awhile)...or on whether "real men" wear neon pink accessories. Those are my personal opinion. I think its quite clear that my point in starting this thread was to remind people that Komen supports a liberal agenda that includes financially supporting a group that kills innocent life. And honestly...it doesn't matter to me if they give millions of dollars to one abortion provider...or a hundred abortion providers. It speaks to their moral standards and I cannot in good conscience support them.

LOL!

[winsomebulldog]

Planned Parenthood receives government grants.

If you pay taxes, you are funding Planned Parenthood.

Ummm...its the law that I must pay taxes. I vote in order to put people in office that won't use my tax dollars to fund killing babies.

It is not the law that I must support a breast cancer foundation that financially supports the killing of babies....especially in light of the fact that there are charitable organizations out there that do not support abortion.

And yet, as has been said over and over again, they do NOT support the killing of babies. This is a flat out lie, period! You, and the groups that spout this lie, deliberately twist the truth to make it sound as though the Komen Foundation actively supports abortions. If you were remotely interested in the truth you would state the facts, not purely inflammatory statements intended to get a rise out of people. The Komen Foundation provides a tiny fraction of their money to very few programs that happen to be run by Planned Parenthood in locations where there are NO OTHER PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE BREAST CARE! These funds are legally required to be spent on breast care and treatment alone because this is the way the Komen Foundation wants it. This is not supporting or advocating abortion, no matter how many times you want to claim it is. They have no "liberal agenda" that is plotting to force women to get abortions. They simply want to make sure all women, even those who are unfortunate enough to be too poor to have the CHOICE to go to an clinic other than Planned Parenthood, can have the health care they need. Obviously, you would much rather seen countless women die from breast (or uterine, or cervical) cancer rather than have them visit a Planned Parenthood clinic where they can get testing to find these diseases. You certainly haven't offered ANY other suggestion on that front. No solution for women who are backed into a corner and have to make the choice between their health and their personal, moral beliefs about abortion. No answer for where they are supposed to go when Planned Parenthood is the ONLY option. Because whether you like it or not, there ARE places out there like that. There isn't a free clinic on every corner in America. Believe me, I know because I have been without insurance.

I thought the football players wearing pink yesterday were doing a good thing. I remember remarking the same to my daughter (a football nut!) that 'it takes a real man to wear pink'. It's not even so much about the money but also about raising awareness...especially among men. Why trash these guys for doing something positive? I don't get it.

People who have their head so buried in the sand that they are unaware of breast cancer are probably not watching NFL football on Sunday.

I am trashing the concept because it is a sham. If the NFL really cared about the problem they wouldn't be spending $10 million dollars to fund this pink campaign..called "A Crucial Catch"...they would be donating money. The NFL could easily donate $100 million dollars to cancer research...instead they chose to dress men in neon pink accessories and sell stuff to force the average american to foot the bill.

Again, pink is historically a mens color, and I have no problem with the color pink. However, wearing flaming, neon, teenage girl pink to support a group that has donated millions of dollars to planned parenthood...thats a whole different story in my book.

Force? Really? A representative from the NFL came into your home, held a gun to your head, and demanded that you surrender your credit card and bank account numbers to "the cause?" Gosh, maybe you ought to call the police about that. I'm pretty sure it's a crime to FORCE someone to hand over their money!

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument from the get go. Because NO ONE is FORCING anyone to do anything. If you don't want a $250 neon pink sweat band, then you have every right to buy a $250 sweat band in the traditional colors of your favorite team. The fact is, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The NFL (along with hundreds of other companies and organizations - none of which you seem to have a problem with since you aren't bashing them) has chosen to take part in that month by having its players wear pink. The shade of pink is utter irrelevant as it relates to the issue at hand. Honestly, I feel that you don't like it because you think it makes your football heroes look immasculine. That is the ONLY reason I can think of for that whole "anti-masculinity month" comment in your opening post. Because seriously, what does what a bunch of professional sports players wear have to do with ANYONE'S masculinity? That's just plain absurd. But here is the part that I found most interesting. The money the NFL raises by auctioning off the player items and/or selling the pink items in their stores is NOT going to the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Wait, What??? Yep, that's right. It goes to the American Cancer Society and team charities. (Funny how you neglected to mention that.)

About a Crucial Catch

The NFL, its clubs, players and the NFL Players Association are proud to support the fight against breast cancer. Our campaign, "A Crucial Catch", in partnership with the American Cancer Society, is focused on the importance of annual screenings, especially for women who are 40 and older. Throughout October, NFL games will feature players, coaches and referees wearing pink game apparel, on-field pink ribbon stencils, special game balls and pink coins - all to help raise awareness for this important campaign. All apparel worn at games by players and coaches, along with special game balls and pink coins will be auctioned off at NFL Auction (www.NFL.com/auction), with proceeds benefitting the American Cancer Society and team charities. This is an issue that has directly touched the lives of so many in the NFL family, and we are committed to helping make a difference in breast cancer prevention. NFL Pink

Nowhere does it say a single word about the Susan G. Komen Foundation. So, basically, your entire opening premise is flat out wrong and the whole Komen for the Cure bit of it is utterly irrelevant. Way to make a mountain out of something smaller than a mole hill, Axx.

NFL Pink is no way at all an "abortion fundraiser" as you said. Ultimately it seems that you just don't like to see football players wearing what you term "flaming, neon, teenage girl pink." Baby Pink would apparently be acceptable. Mauve, would apparently be acceptable. Just not neon pink! Oh the humanity of it! I do think that you perhaps owe the NFL an apology. At the very least, you should consider making a retraction about your totally wrong claims about where their "anti-masculinity month" donations are going. Or maybe you just hate cancer research altogether. Because, you know it's all a liberal conspiracy to trick women into having abortions.

Oh, and after doing just a few moments of checking, I realized that the NFL Pink items were generally cheaper than the regular items, sometimes by several dollars. I did see one hat that was actually the same price as a traditionally colored one, but then there were bunches of other hats that were quite a bit more expensive.

[LeonaS]

I have no problem with men wearing any shade of pink, I am grateful that the NFL did this for Breast Cancer Research. I do not wish to get involved with the "supporting abortion" issue (though I hope it's not true). However, I would like to know why breast cancer is given an out of proportion chunk of attention when there are so many other kinds of cancers (kidney, prostate, lymphoma, melanoma, etc) which could use research dollars too. Not diminishing breast cancer, just pointing out that there are other terrible types of cancer to have.

[winsomebulldog]

I have no problem with men wearing any shade of pink, I am grateful that the NFL did this for Breast Cancer Research. I do not wish to get involved with the "supporting abortion" issue (though I hope it's not true). However, I would like to know why breast cancer is given an out of proportion chunk of attention when there are so many other kinds of cancers (kidney, prostate, lymphoma, melanoma, etc) which could use research dollars too. Not diminishing breast cancer, just pointing out that there are other terrible types of cancer to have.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, the NFL Pink program donates to the American Cancer Society, which does research for ALL forms of cancer, not just breast cancer. I have lost a sister to lung cancer and my mother-in-law, who was my best friend, to brain cancer, so while I am currently fighting breast cancer myself, I am by no means devoted solely to its research. I just take issue with the opening post, claiming that the NFL Pink program is funding abortions, which is blatantly untrue, as proven by the links I posted.

As to the "out of proportion chunk of attention" that breast cancer specifically is given, well I can't and won't argue with that. I have thought the same thing on more than one occasion. I think a lot of factors go into this, including the incidence of whatever type of cancer we're talking about and the mortality rates associated with it. Prostrate is the highest occurring cancer. Hubby has read that pretty much all men, if they live long enough, will develop prostrate cancer. It's a very slow moving cancer, though, and not overly difficult to treat. Breast cancer is the highest occurring female cancer. The deadliest form of cancer, however, is lung. It is generally very aggressive and moves fast. My sister, for example, was stage 4 when she was first diagnosed. You can get some very general charted stats on the top ten cancers at this CDC site.

Lung cancer does have it's own month as well. November is National Lung Cancer Awareness Month. But there are other cancers that are less well known, that don't have a national awareness month, or much awareness at all. This is undoubtedly unfair, but it is also the way things in this world work. What we see and hear about most, and whoever does the best job of promotion gets the most attention. Other cancers are not necessarily being ignored, however. Especially not by the ACS, which is dedicated to researching and finding cures for them all. And, as I said, this is who the NFL Pink program gives its money to, which is what turns the entire premise of this thread into a mistake at best, and a flat out lie if you want to assume the worst.