Charities Upset Over Chase Facebook Contest

ssv03 writes "The New York Times is reporting that Chase Community Giving of Chase Bank recently held a contest on Facebook in which users were encouraged to vote for their favorite charities. At the end of the contest, the 100 charities with the most votes would win $25,000 and advance to the next round to have a chance to win $1 million. Initially, the vote counts for each organization were made public, but two days before voting ended they were hidden, and the final totals have still not been released. While Chase had no official leader board during the voting, several organizations were keeping track of projected winners. Those projections were almost identical to the final results, yet several organizations including Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists. They had been performing very well (some within the top 20) until the vote counters were removed. Chase Bank has so far refused to discuss the issue with the organizations. SSDP has spoken out in a press release (PDF) and is calling for a boycott."

Comments

Charities?

[Jojoba86]

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists

In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.

Re:Charities?

[CRCulver]

Many organizations in the US that push for policy changes are federally registered as 501c3 charities.

Re:Charities?

[Culture20]

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Marijuana Policy Project and several anti-abortion groups were not finalists

In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.

Plenty of anti-abortion groups are about helping and educating pregnant women, not advancing political change. Anti-abortion doesn't always mean anti-choice (as strange as it sounds). The MPP probably believe they're helping glaucoma patients. I don't know what the SSDP does.

Re:Charities?

[maxume]

It's simpler to refer to 501c as a tax status and leave the charity part off.

Re:Charities?

[Zontar The Mindless]

That's not the point. The point is that Chase, after making the results highly public, made them vanish without explanation from public view as soon as they started trending in a direction that Chase didn't care for.

If they'd actually come out and *said* "We're disqualifying these organisations on the grounds of _______..." and then removed those groups from the tally, that would be one thing, but this is quite another.

Chase should at least be honest about what they're doing and why.

Re:Charities?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine they're in the business of getting you high as fuck, bro.

Re:Charities?

[Dexter Herbivore]

I'm guessing the SSDP wants to protect more fellow students from having their lives destroyed by the insanity of the War on Drugs.

Re:Charities?

[dontmakemethink]

Try telling a zealous anti-abortionist they're not helping people in need. That'll go over well.

Also ask the ~600,000 Americans arrested for possession (not trafficking) of marijuana if new law is or isn't required. That's 600k *annually*.

Re:Charities?

[ClioCJS]

Oh wow, so anyone using marijuana is a drug addict. You ever drink coffee or alcohol, ya addict?

SSDP is about repealing the law passed by an anti-drug crusading republican which denied student loans to anyone with a marijuana defense. Because of course taking people's education away is certainly going to lead them on the rigth path in life. That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't comprehend it.

Re:Charities?

[ClioCJS]

It's about removing the law that denies student loans for anyone with a marijuana conviction. Because of course taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar isn't exactly the best way to minimize marijuana's impact on people's lives. The wierd thing is is that the punishment/getting caught is far more damaging than the drug itself.

Re:Charities?

[Whatshisface]

But coming back to the original point, is that a charity? Just from reading the summary, it seems like all the groups that were removed were activist groups endorsing a specific change in laws. Its one thing to ask Chase to endorse the charity of your choice, its another to ask them to make a political donation to support your pet cause.

Re:Charities?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Silly rabbit. A charity is just a corporation with tax exempt status.

Re:Charities?

[copponex]

If drugs were legalized, it would do a hell of a lot more good for poor communities than any sort of handout.

On the other hand, if abortion were criminalized, many more women would die and the crime rate would spike 15 years later.

Re:Charities?

[Bazman]

As I see it, they made the current votes public. As any fule kno, if you don't want to bias your election/survey/popularity contest you don't publish the votes as they come in since that will either encourage the losing parties to have to rally their troops or lose heart and give up, or cause the winning parties to get over-confident. Sure, these effects may cancel each other out but it's no longer a simple question of how do the people who can be bothered to think independently want to vote.

See that last slashdot poll that asked 'How do you choose your answer to the slashdot poll?' when the most popular option was 'vote for the current leader'. Or something like that. Someome find the URL...

Re:Charities?

[NormalVisual]

Being "anti-abortion" doesn't necessarily mean one advocates the criminalization of it. I personally think abortion is a disgusting cop-out and an affront to humanity in most cases, but I also realize there is enough of an argument over when life begins that it becomes essentially a moral/religious matter, and you run into all kinds of church/state issues if you attempt to criminalize it. So, until such time as that question can be definitively answered, I think it's something that needs to be allowed to be available. Let the doctor, the woman, and optionally whatever deity she worships sort the moral issues out among themselves.

Re:Charities?

[Arthur Grumbine]

That's the trouble with all anti-abortion groups: they only care about babies being born, after wards, the mother is on her own - even if it means they starve and are homeless. And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian.

Your ignorance of the anti-abortion movement is hilarious. My parents/family have (for 20+ years, now) been very involved in supporting multiple organizations in SoCal whose primary concern is taking care of single mothers who choose not to have an abortion - providing a home for them (often for the first couple years), while also helping them find a job, including providing professional skills training and support for taking college courses, as well as paying for food, baby needs, medical expenses, etc. Here's a link to one of them. The website quality is kinda crappy because they spend all monetary donations on supporting the women. But don't let a google search of "home for unwed mothers", or "home for single mothers", get in the way of your hate.

Re:Charities?

[evanbd]

If that's Chase's policy, they should just explain that and be consistent about it, and far fewer people would be complaining.

Re:Charities?

[MaWeiTao]

When life begins is a scientific matter, not moral or religious. The fact that egg and sperm comprise living cells means it's alive from day one. Hell, people argue viruses are alive and they lack many of the properties of living cells. However, you can definitely argue that in those early days while the genetic material is all there to form a human it's still a clump of cells. But the first few months in, when you've got a brain forming, a beating heart, a nervous system, limps and other identifiable organs we've absolutely crossed a threshold. We now have a living human.

I realize it's not politically expedient if you're trying to push abortion, but that's a scientific fact. It may not be a fully developed human, but it's a human life, without question. I mean, if we're going to get into debates about whether a fetus is a living human then we could start applying the same conditions to a disfigured adult.

But okay, I could accept first trimester abortions. It's still very early, the fetus isn't fully developed, especially in the first months or two. And the mother has had plenty of time to decide that she doesn't want this kid. But why in the hell are there people pushing for second, and especially third trimester abortions. By that point we've gone way beyond the point of whether it's a living baby or not. Babies are born all the time very prematurely and turn out to be perfectly healthy kids. If you've gone 6+ months with that baby and suddenly decide you don't want it just have some decency and give it up for adoption when it's born.

What I can't stand is when people start playing semantics and twisting science to support a political point of view. Don't dehumanize a fetus to make abortion easier to accept. Admit that it's alive but that you want to the convenience and the choice.

Re:Charities?

[m.ducharme]

You need an education to be blue-collar these days. Marijuana convictions create a growing class of criminal entrepreneurs, not blue-collar workers.

Re:Charities?

[Psyborgue]

But coming back to the original point, is that a charity? Just from reading the summary, it seems like all the groups that were removed were activist groups endorsing a specific change in laws.

Most activist groups still on the list do.

Its one thing to ask Chase to endorse the charity of your choice, its another to ask them to make a political donation to support your pet cause.

They put it up for a vote. When they didn't like the results, they excluded certain organizations and refused to give a reason. That's what people are upset about and I don't blame the organizations excluded for promoting a boycott.

Re:Charities?

[Anonymous Coward]

"(since the efficacy of contraception greatly increased)".... Sadly, those opposed to abortion are not infrequently also opposed to birth control and/or sex education with the inevitable result of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

You'd like to think that individuals who are opposed to preventing unwanted children would be standing in line for the opportunity to adopt such children and raise them in a loving environment. They don't. They leave them as a problem for society to solve.

Re:Charities?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Really? Slavery, abortion and infanticide is all centuries old. Unfortunately only two of these barbaric practices were stopped.

That has got to be the stupidest argument against abortion I have heard yet. Let me try another triplet. Stoning, religion and castration are all centuries old. Unfortunately, only two of these barbaric practices were stopped.

Re:Charities?

[makomk]

If you mean "helping" make sure they don't get an abortion by whatever means necessary (including lying to them and setting up "pregnancy resource centers" that pretend to offer abortions but really just string women along for long enough they can't seek one elsewhere), and by "educating" you mean misleading for ideological reasons, then yes, exactly that. Seriously, the anti-choice movement is quite evil.

Re:Charities?

[AK Marc]

Seriously, the anti-choice movement is quite evil.

They believe abortion is murder. They are willing to go all the way to murder of their own if they think it will stop them. They try to distance themselves from the clinic bombers, but rarely do you actually hear full-out condemnation. And yes, they'll lie to stop abortions. But what I think is most horrible is that one of the proven most effective way of stopping abortions is sex ed combined with free available contraception. And the anti-choice people object to that. That makes then not pro-life, but evil anti-choice people that do not have the best interests of children at heart, but want to push their personal and religious beliefs on others against their will in a manner that they know harms others. It's not lying to prevent murder that makes them evil. It's lying to cause the situations that cause abortions, then calling abortion murder.

The few principled ones who want to stop abortions and think abortion is murder usually end up pro-choice because they realize that pro-choice pushes education and doesn't push abortions. They realize that making it illegal will still result in abortions, but that the illegal ones jeopardize not just the baby's life but the mother's as well, and they realize that a parent that wants to kill their kid before the child is even born may not be the best environment for the child, and that aborting this one so the next, when the time is right, will have a family ready to receive it and a better life is the best thing for all involved (and of course, the hind sight to realize that education and contraception would have prevented the whole situation).

Re:Charities?

[fluffy99]

If that's Chase's policy, they should just explain that and be consistent about it, and far fewer people would be complaining.

Chase did explain their policy, both upfront and after these groups started whining. They simply weren't eligible in the first place and got culled out after the first round of voting. Wikipedia describes SSDP as a "non-profit advocacy group", which is not the same thing as a charity. Below are some relevant quotes from the articles.

Chase opened its contest to any charity whose operating budget was less than $10 million and whose mission “aligned” with the bank’s corporate social responsibility guidelines.
"Chase’s eligibility rules make it clear that the bank can disqualify any participant."

Mr. Evangelisti said the 100 finalists “reflect those organizations that received the most votes among eligible participants.”

Re:Charities?

[AK Marc]

Until you've lived in the culture try not to pretend that you know about it just because you've cherry-picked choice phrases from someone who makes a claim that allows you to cast the opposition in a universally negative light.

The number one way to prevent abortion is to educate and make contraception available. Organizations that claim to want to reduce the number of abortions that don't address the number one preventative measure seem to either be irrational or to have some other goal other than the stated one. Since I don't know of any organization that calls itself pro-life that pushes for education and free condoms and IUDs for all, I'm confused what their true goals are, and that's one reason people distrust them. Not to mention that there is a wide spectrum, and some are more nefarious in their methods, it's sometimes easy to lump them all together.

Re:Charities?

[Smauler]

Alcohol is in fact the only drug that I know of that has withdrawal symptoms that include death. If you are a severe alcoholic, you should not go cold turkey. From about.com:

However, within six to 48 hours after not drinking, hallucinations may develop. These usually are visual hallucinations but they can also involve sounds and smells. They can last for a few hours up to weeks at a time.
Also within this time frame after quitting, convulsions or seizures can occur, which is the point at which alcohol withdrawal can become dangerous, if not medically treated. The symptoms may progress to delirium tremens (DT's) after three to five days without alcohol. The symptoms of DT's include profound confusion, disorientation, hallucinations, hyperactivity, and extreme cardiovascular disturbances.
Once DT's begin, there is no known medical treatment to stop them. Grand mal seizures, heart attacks and stroke can occur during the DT's, all of which can be fatal.

Re:Charities?

[EllisDees]

No, it can't. You might wish you were dead, but there are no cases of heroin withdrawal killing anyone.

Re:Charities?

[sorak]

It is the pro-abortion folks who need to be dragged into the "century of the fruitbat".

As a pro-abortion folk, I'm pretty sure I got dragged into the "century of the fruitbat" nine years ago...

Re:Charities?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Pretty sure there's a sizable chunk of the middle east where all three of those are still accepted by mainstream society...whether or not that's a refutation of your argument is up for debate, though...

No debate. I could have written "in US" or "in the civilized world" or similar, and it would have been the same "argument". It's not an argument at all, just a lame attempt to condemn something by associating. Like condemning Christianity by linking it with child abuse/sex, or linking Islam and terrorism.

Re:Charities?

[amilo100]

You'd like to think that individuals who are opposed to preventing unwanted children would be standing in line for the opportunity to adopt such children and raise them in a loving environment.

I know many people who are adopted (and who adopted children themselves). Adoption is never easy (and it is a lifelong commitment). And yeah, the only orphanage in my town is run (and funded) by one of those evil churches who are opposed to abortion.

Re:Charities?

[Ash Vince]

Chase opened its contest to any charity whose operating budget was less than $10 million and whose mission "aligned" with the bank's corporate social responsibility guidelines.

Which basically reads as: Any charity Chase corporate management do not like is not seeing a dime.

Re:Charities?

[sjames]

When life begins is a scientific matter, not moral or religious.

However, that is not the relevant issue. Only the strictest of vegans actually condemn any taking of life whatsoever (and most will reluctantly admit that their own immune system or simply cleaning their cookware kills some form of life).

Clearly, we do not oppose the killing of any human cells whatsoever, that happens all the time no matter what we do. My individual cells have no rights to themselves. A pint of my blood extracted into a plastic bag is not a human being. When the surgeon sends a human appendix down the incinerator chute he is not a murderer.

The question is when does an embryo transition from just a group of human cells into a human being. Answers have varied widely through different times and cultures and range anywhere from the instant gametes fuse on up to 4 years after birth. All of the arguments about what point on that spectrum is correct ARE moral, religious, and philosophical. Science cannot even approach that question. There exist no objective criteria to be tested against.

Re:Charities?

[Blakey Rat]

(NSFW Image)

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/2009_in_photos_part_3_of_3.html#photo37

A man was stoned to death just this year.

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[Jojoba86]

As TFA states:

Chase’s eligibility rules make it clear that the bank can disqualify any participant.

Pretty straightfoward really, no lawyer techno-bable there.

Non-embarassing charities

[192939495969798999]

Obviously Chase meant the top "non-embarassing to a big company" charities. Can you imagine if Chase had to donate $1M to the Marijuana Policy Project? I'm sure the board freaked out at the thought of "chase" and "MJ" being in the same sentence and said, "do whatever is necessary to make sure we don't get that association."

Re:Non-embarassing charities

[betterunixthanunix]

Exactly what I was thinking. Of course, Chase should know that "crowdsourcing" is not guaranteed to yield the results that they were hoping for.

So disqualify them...

[tomhath]

I wouldn't have a problem if Chase had declared an organization ineligible, but that's not what they did. Instead they wimped out and hid the vote tallies, probably blocking votes to organizations that those running the contest don't support, without even saying who or why they were disqualified.

Marketing, not charity

[xzvf]

The reason a corporation give money to a charity isn't because it believes in the charity, but because it will get a blurb in paper saying how good they are and increase the brand good will. Does anyone really expect a corporation to spend $25000 so it can be on the news with a headline "Chase supports legalizing Drugs". I won't even get to the quagmire around abortion. I'm sure if they do this again, they'll pre-screen organizations that are allowed to participate. Frankly I'd been more concerned if they screened out an organization that helps people get out of credit card debt.

Re:Marketing, not charity

[Culture20]

In both of those cases, you can be sure that they'd get plenty of blurbs in every news medium. They're getting blurbs now, but it's being tied to how secretive they are with money. Not sure I want to bank with them.

Re:Marketing, not charity

[ModernGeek]

Those non profit get out of debt corporations are just collection agencies for the credit card companies. I'd be even more concerned if one of those won the contest. Imagine how good it would look for them as they evaded taxes, got great PR, free advertising, and collected old debts all at once.

Like Darth Vader said:

[kurt555gs]

" I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it any further ".

Banks, Ugh!

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[Aladrin]

And as others are saying, they -should- have disqualified them, instead of changing the game mid-stream and hiding things. The hiding is why people are -really- mad right now.

Don't get me wrong, the pro-MJ people would be pissed either way... But now -everyone- is pissed instead.

Pro-"Choice"

[Fished]

And the problem with all "pro-choice" organizations and individuals is that they only care about the adults. They never consider that the baby, could it speak, might rather live even if it's car seat wouldn't be loaded in an SUV and mom wouldn't get to have the perfect, 2.4 kid household with the perfect husband and the perfect career. Instead, they declare on rather spurious grounds that the baby isn't a baby and say, "just excise it!" And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian, or even Catholic.

I certainly agree that many pro-lifers are self-righteous blowhards. But not all of them are. You might want to do a bit more looking if that's what you think.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[thetoadwarrior]

Like anything, both sides are filled with extremist assholes.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

So you say that deciding to end the life of a fetus is immoral. Animals in nature have been practicing infanticide since animals began walking the earth. Is it immoral to destroy a non sentient fetus versus a developing infant? If God created all things then he also built this into all animals, the only difference between us and the animal kingdom, is we do it earlier in the childs development.
 
Is it moral, or immoral neither is relevant. All things on earth do it, all have done it for thousands of years, animals just do it for different reasons than we do it.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[selven]

If you believe in something strongly (and forcing women to harbor a parasite for 9 months / killing children, depending on which way you see it, is an emotional subject), you tend to think the other side is made up of assholes.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like anything, both sides are filled with extremist assholes.

When pro-choicers start threatening, murdering and blowing up clinics that refuse to carry out abortions, then you may have a point...

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[linzeal]

As a long time progressive pro-lifer I must say that the type of groups you are talking about to my knowledge have not existed since the 80's. Most pro-life groups I know of that do outreach have people that help with getting a job, getting into school and very often helping with childcare. The last one I volunteered at even had a licensed therapist come in that treated issues like having an abortion, domestic violence and post-partum depression. Show me a Planned Parenthood that does counseling for grief after the abortion, it seems PP is more of the cut and run type when it comes to this issue.

I'm a member of CFI and not bound by any theology, so your blanket statement doesn't apply to me or most of the people I know who work at pro-life groups like Democrats for Life, PLAGAL and other progressive groups or even volunteers at centers that are sponsored by religious organizations.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Ironsides]

To your point about most abortions around the 9th week.... take the tumor out then & see if it's a human.... not likely. Will it survive then outside the womb & develop? No... so it's not a human yet.

How do you define human? A fetus at 22 weeks development can survive to adulthood. Would you define that as human, then? A newborn baby can not survive without help. Is that newborn baby then not human as it can not survive without help?

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Arthur Grumbine]

I'm asking this seriously. If you took said fetus out of the woman at the 9 week stage, what are the chances it would survive w/o assistance?

How long would a newborn, or even a 6-month-old child survive without assistance?

Plain and simple, if it would kill my wife to have a baby and she got pregnant (and she would otherwise be able to live a semi-normal healthy lifespan), my guess is that I would want to keep my wife alive... however, I would still leave the decision up to her.

Fortunately the strong majority of anti-abortion activists believe in exceptions for the life of the mother as well as rape cases. Additionally, all cases for rape, incest, and health risks to the mother account for only 1% of all of abortions, according the the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[mrs clear plastic]

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Abortion is a very emotional issue.

May I please suggest that we all keep the peace!

We all must treat each other with love and respect.

Luv you all!

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[geekboy642]

Well, please do invent the absolute worst kinds of inhumane treatment to prove that women must have no control over their own bodies. A shockingly vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and if you can make out an expression on a fetus that's less than 12 weeks old, you've got an imagination too vivid to be anonymously yelling on the internet. Of the vanishingly small percentage of abortions that are performed when the baby has passed the normal age of viability, the vast majority of those are performed to save the life of the mother, or to prevent the infant from having a short, brutish, and pointless life. The misogynistic organizations are attacking a strawman that was never relevant in the slightest.

The abuses you've imagined are not because a mother suddenly decided, two weeks before her due date, that she didn't want a baby. Late term abortions are performed to save lives and limit suffering. We find it sane to put down a dog that's been grievously injured, but for some reason ending the suffering of a child born without a brain is some gross unjust cruelty, and you somehow believe that a child cursed to die before their first birthday should be forced to live through a year of brutish suffering, rather than being given the only kindness we have.

Finally, statistics demonstrate that women will still get abortions, regardless of how stringent the theocracy is that you place them under. Legalized abortions mean fewer women die. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive? That's the only 'choice' offered.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is quite immoral to force people what to do with their bodies

In that token, it is also immoral to force me to take care of my kids. If they're draining me, emotionally and physically, I can just ignore them right? After all, it is immoral to force me to wear myself out taking care of them. You have to take responsibility for your actions. I believe it is immoral for you to create a life, then kill it, all with support from me (the gov't represents my interests, after all). With consensual sex with contraceptives there is always a slight chance of a pregnancy. If you cannot accept the consequences that follow from your actions, then don't expect society (and me) to take responsibility instead. It is immoral to not take responsibility for a life you created; whether that kid is -5m old or 5 years old.

especially since the grounds for objections are at best some kind of vitalism - soul, spirit and other nonsense.

Nothing of the sort. That baby represents a person. It is a specific combination of genes that represent an entirely unique person. That person has been created and requires a specific decision and action to terminate. Without this, they will grow up. They will love, have friends, go to school, have kids of their own, contribute to society and die, hopefully of natural causes. What does a soul have to do with anything? It is the potential of a life that could be lived that matters. If you don't feel you are in a position to take care of it, then put the baby up for adoption.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that we have no universally excepted definition of sentience.

If you classify it as being able to experience, process, and adapt to external stimulii, then pretty much every animal lifeform on the planet is "sentient" to one extent or another. (this includes unborn fetuses)

If you try to take it to some high-level abstraction, like "Can answer questions", then babies up to several months would fail this test as being pre-sentient.

So, forgive me if I dont swallow your "Sentience" based approach, because it is both poorly defined, and self-gratifying.

The only thing here I think I can agree with is the headless/brainless baby issue; since that is basically just genetically unique tissue.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Aldenissin]

The abuses you've imagined are not because a mother suddenly decided, two weeks before her due date, that she didn't want a baby.

These abuses are not imagined, they are real. Even if 2 weeks after she found out she was pregnant, that doesn't make it OK. I also think many people may be OK with abortion in the "logical" instances you use in the defense of abortion. A shockingly vast majority of abortions are simply "choice".

 

Finally, statistics demonstrate that women will still get abortions, regardless of how stringent the theocracy is that you place them under. Legalized abortions mean fewer women die. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive? That's the only 'choice' offered.

I fail to see how you can justify something as "right" because,"They were going to do it anyway!" Michael Vick would still be fighting dogs if we held that standard to everything with any sort of "moral" argument to it. People still fight dogs, every day. And perhaps you are right, less women die. But they kill more babies since it is easy and legal. I am not going to be for heroin being legal just because it may save some lives from bad needles. (I know they can be attained free in places, but you get the point.)

  I choose the pleasant feeling of the right choice, and not advocating murder. There is no way around it, that is what it is. Saying a child is not "born", and therefore not alive well, you might want to reserve a nice spot in hell with the rest of the lawyers and lobbyists that deserve to go there. Whatever you vision of hell may be.

  One must see the forest from the trees. Abortion for choice is undeniably wrong to anyone if you can concede that a child is alive (refuse to debate that right now) except to anyone who is blinded by selfishness. Killing, or more specifically murder, is wrong. There is no moral way to justify murder. What gives you the right? Would I be justified in killing 2 members of your family to save all 6 of mine? If you can not answer that question in the negative, then you are delusionally on the "moral extreme" and fail to see that "making the hard choice" will only allow whoever setup that dilemma to win.

[ Is it all about not letting a bad guy win? No, it is about staying pure and not succumbing to wrong choices simply because they are easy. Anything less will taint you, and allow you to taint others. I for one, do not wish to welcome our tainted overlords. : ) ]

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Aldenissin]

What is actually going on there is the tacit assumption that a developing baby doesn't count as a human. If that's your argument, you should say it.

A fetus doesn't count as a human being. And even if it did, the adult counts more.

There. Happy?

No, not happy. What is a fetus, but an unborn human baby. (unless it is an alien fetus) So it does count.

  And no, my feelings that everyone who believes in abortion should die (joking) does not count more than your's that you are right just because you hadn't been born yet. You would then argue that your opinion doesn't count at all, but then I would say please see above.

  Now I am happy.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Arthur Grumbine]

Here's some perspective from these two sets of statistics from the Guttmacher Institute. To give you the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume that every woman who claimed the reason for having an abortion was because of health risks or concern for the health of the fetus (~2%) had it after 19 weeks, and that the health risks, or health defects were all of the utmost gravity. For the sake of this argument we won't discuss anything before 12 weeks, although it is important to note that at 12 weeks the brain has already divided into 5 regions and has been developing as a cohesive whole for 5 weeks.
Now, there were 1.21 million abortions in the United States in 2005. That means that there were at least 111,320 (9.2% of 1.21 million) fetuses aborted between 12 and 19 weeks of development (more developed than this little guy). That's over 110,000 fetuses who are as able to feel pain as anyone else, and make facial expressions, being aborted every year with various descriptions of (in)convenience being the reason given by the mother.

In comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports the number of fatalities for 2005 (in the U.S.) involving alcohol was 17,590. The fatalities for all other accidents was 25,920. Pediatric cancer killed 2,200 children in 2004. Deaths attributed to HIV/AIDS for children and adults was 25,000 in all of North America in 2008. So the deaths attributed to all these hot-button issues combined is less than the deaths of fetuses.

Regarding the "they'll still do it no matter how strict the law" argument:
This argument only works on the premise that there is nothing wrong with the activity itself. For example, statistics demonstrate that men will still rape women, regardless of how harsh the penalty (even in countries where the penalty is death). Legalized rape means fewer women die, because the rapist will not feel the need to kill the woman to prevent her from reporting him to the police. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive?

Do you see that just as you believe that rape is an intrinsically unacceptable act, and therefore there can be no justification for it's legal acceptance, so do the anti-abortion believers believe that the abortion of a fetus for the sake of convenience (being seen as murder) is an intrinsically unacceptable act?

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[stdarg]

My reasoning is sound and well founded.

Your reasoning is sound but it's not well founded because plenty of people would disagree with your assumptions, particularly:

My starting assumption was that it was the presence of a mind that defines the presence of a person.

Why not differentiate between incomplete but developing minds and "empty human tissue" as you call it?

Consider that my liver is never going to become a sentient being without the intercession of some advanced technology. But if a woman is pregnant, her undeveloped fetus will probably become a sentient being with no external interference at all. Isn't that an important distinction, even though neither mass of cells has a proper mind at this pinpoint of time?

I guess you're concerned with instantaneous morality, which is odd since one of the most perplexing and distinguishing features of sentience (and consciousness in general) is its awareness of the passage of time.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[volpe]

...ending the suffering of a child born without a brain ...

A child born without a brain can't possibly be suffering.

Re:Pro-"Choice"

[Trogre]

Don't be stupid.

The vast, vast, vast majority of abortion cases have absolutely nothing to do with mitigating significant risks to the mother or mercifully euthanasing a non-viable foetus. Vast. It is a convenience issue - the mother doesn't want it, so she kills it and gets on with her life. Often it's documented as "risk of severe mental anguish" or some such to get around legislative issues but that's not relevant here.

Please stop saying that anti-abortionists think women should have no control over their bodies. That is a straw man fallacy. Anti-abortionists (at least the ones I've come across) claim there are two bodies involved in a pregnancy, and the women can do whatever she wants with her body as long as it doesn't harm the other. I realise the "telling women what to do with their bodies" mantra is popular in feminist circles since it can be easily twisted to look like oppression, conveniently ignoring the entire subject of the issue - the child.

Do you really think that all women who have had abortions would have done so if it was not legally offered as a first option by their GP? That claim is ridiculous and doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I can provide plenty of anecdotes, but won't bother since the plural of such is not considered "data". Yes some women will undoubtedly seek illegal abortions if no other option was legally available just like some people seek out narcotic drugs.

What this can really be boiled down to is whether or not human life itself holds intrinsic value. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't but don't pretend the abortion debate is about anything else.

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[thetoadwarrior]

Remove them from the beginning rather than letting them think they have a chance.

Amex did it better...

[klubar]

American Express (AmEx) did something similar in the Boston area. However, they thought it through first. An organization that wanted to participate had to submit a proposal on what they would do with the money and description of the organization's misson. AmEx selected about 40 (all worthwhile) organizations to vote on. AmEx got a reasonable selection of charities to participate--some of the really large ones, and a few highly specialized. The organizations used their participation to encourage their members to vote and become engaged to the organiztion goals.

I think every organization that was selected got some funding (perhaps at the $1000 level) so there weren't hard feeling from the losers.

Goes to show you that Chase != American Express.

Re:Amex did it better...

[DavidTC]

That's what I would do. There are too many charitable organizations with really good PR and really shitty records of actually helping anything, like PETA.

Also, a lot of organizations do good work, but don't really need large amounts of cash. Like the Red Cross. They need volunteers, not money.

And plenty of organizations do good work, but are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as having a political bent, so for maximum PR, you'd want to leave those out.

Re:Good for Chase.

[Psyborgue]

The fact that so many people are imprisoned or have otherwise have their lives ruined by the great war against drugs (self ownership) sickens me. Chase chose to put up a vote to determine what people believe sickens them most. Who are you or Chase to interfere?

Re:Good for Chase.

[evanbd]

And the thought of people's lives being ruined over doing something that did no harm to anyone doesn't sicken you?

Re:Good for Chase.

[quarrelinastraw]

there are other human being starving and dying and suffering

Yeah, like the many people dead or wounded due to gang violence fueled by the street drug trade, or the many people addicted to drugs who can't get medical or treatment help because they will get arrested or simply ignored, the people dying in Afghanistan and Iraq due to terrorist groups funded largely by the heroin trade.

I could go on, but you're an idiot if you think the current US policy toward narcotics doesn't cause starving, dying and suffering.

People who think caring about drug policy is for bong-toting fratboys sicken me.

Re:Good for Chase.

[mangu]

The thought that people are putting the legalization of a recreational drug over say giving somebody a hot meal sickens me.

The thought that people are putting giving someone a hot meal over say giving a good professional education sickens me.

The fact is that most of the people whose lives have been destroyed by drug-related arrests are not bored college kids looking for recreation. If your dad is rich enough your arrest will be stricken off police records. If you can pay a good enough lawyer you'll get probation. If you are poor you'll get a rap sheet that will haunt you forever.

Disclaimer: I have never used drugs, not even marijuana. But I support total legalization of all drugs.

Oh Come On

[Greyfox]

I wish both sides of the debate would at least be honest about their motivations.

The anti-choice side just want full control over a woman's body. To them a woman is nothing more than livestock that they own.

The anti-life people are just in it because, frankly, killing babies is fun and they can't quite figure out how to legally have Friday night baby killing parties.

Now... figure out which side I'm on :-P

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[Rockoon]

I dont need to see a disclaimer to form my opinion here.

Chase is donating 3.5 million bucks to charities, and the result is a bunch of fucking assholes with the nerve to bitch and complain about how they are doing it.

A Credit Card company changing the rules?

[duncan]

Wow, a credit card company changing the rules in the middle of the game.

How Shocking!

Free abortions for minorities.

[tjstork]

As for the anti-abortion, they just *need* to be dragged screaming and kicking into the century of the fruitbat.
--

You are 100% right. I think we should start with a comprehensive national program to provide free abortions for everyone who is not of the sinful white race. We would educate all the mothers of minorities that they have rights, provide for them, with a special tax on white people, perhaps, because of their sinful state, to pay for it.

In fact, knowing that our planet is so terribly overpopulated, we could even work to save our beseiged planet and creatively encourage pregnant mothers of minority children to make the correct choices through the use of govnerment aid for her existing children as an incentive.

Re:Free abortions for minorities.

[Arthur Grumbine]

Margaret Sanger, is that you?

Re:Good for Chase.

[DavidTC]

It actually makes much more sense to complain and try to fix things where society is proactively hurting people than when society is just ignoring people or where some natural problem is.

I mean, an organization trying to figure out why someone is homeless is hard. Getting them off street is hard, as is making sure someone just doesn't show up to take their place.

Likewise, curing a disease is hard. We can spend millions on research that doesn't go anywhere.

Compares to those, not locking people up for drug us and not spending money to do so is incredibly efficient. We don't actually have to solve some biological or social problem. We just have to stop doing something.

It's like, if your house is falling apart, due to termites, random vandals, water damage...and a guy you're paying to run around punching holes in the wall with a sledgehammer.

Which problem are you going to address first to fix your house? I dunno about you, but I'd get the sledgehammer guy to stop, even if the other problems are 'worse' in some objective sense of how damaged your house is.

501(c)(3) defined by the IRS

[drew30319]

I run a 501(c)(3) that I formed in 2006. My organization was also in the running for the Chase Contest but was not one of the winners. While disappointed, I'm pleased that Chase undertook this contest using this approach. Generally corporate contests and donations go to the large charities; Chase at least gave us a chance. Following is the IRS information on being a 501(c)(3); note that the first paragraph states "[...]it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities[...]"

Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Re:Oh do please save that selfish nonsense, pathet

[Psyborgue]

"Because of course taking someone's education away"

What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself?

It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people.

Re:Not outrageous, just underhanded.

[Jesus_666]

In fact, there's a perfectly valid reason for all involved charities to be pissed off - Chase is using them for PR in ways they don't deserve. Winning a public popularity contest gives exposure to a charity and can be used for good PR. Coming up first in a rigged poll is not going to make your charity look quite as good. Chase is trying to milk their donation for PR not just in the usual way ("look, we give money to charities we like") but also by making it appear that they care about your opinion while they actually don't.

No charity wants to be associated with dishonesty.

Hold on

[fyngyrz]

At issue here is their social agenda, not their efficient use of bailout monies.

This is highly reminiscent of when Obama asked for input from Americans for issues they wanted to see addressed; the very highest rated issue was legalization of marijuana and amnesty for those imprisoned or otherwise punished.

So what happened? When the time came to address the issues, Obama laughed it off, literally laughing about it in public, during the program for talking about these issues, and acting like it was "crazy talk."

The people running this country - and you'd better believe that includes the people running the banks and other major players in the financial system, such as the insurance companies - are completely out of touch.

Re:Hold on

[Stormwatch]

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Re:Hold on

[jayme0227]

Even if most people support marijuana law reform, they aren't actually proponents, just not opponents. In both the Obama survey and the Facebook survey, results that seem to show that marijuana law reform has a lot of proponents are skewed because the style of survey trends towards over-representing the young and the vocal. It still remains that most Americans just don't care enough for anything to come of it.

Re:Hold on

[Ender_Wiggin]

Maybe you live in an echo chamber, but show me public opinion polls claiming support for legalizing Marijuana. If you're so confident, why don't you run for Congress on it, where you can bring it to the floor for a vote?

Fact is, it's a political death sentence. More people would likely oppose it than support it, despite the few rallies of college students. Any politician outside of california who openly supports it would get attacked immediately, and their opponent would be able to raise more money.

If you think Obama is going to make himself a one-term president by advocating for something Congress would never support, write him a letter telling him to stand up and try it. See what he thinks.

Regulation drops prices and usage

[copponex]

Read about what happened in Portugal.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Re:Sorry, guy, religion isn't AGAINST THE LAW

[Psyborgue]

"It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). "

Religion isn't agianst the law.

But if it was, you're saying it would be ok? If it were legal to deny a person a student loan because of their religion would it make it right? It would still be prejudice based on a personal choice. You simply don't see it that way because you do not personally approve.

Seems to me to be a pretty big difference, I suppose for the purpose of making your point, you chose to ignore it.

Legality is irrelevant to the point I was making. What is legal and what is not has little to do with what is right and wrong, what is ethical and what isn't.

"People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people."

They chose not to follow the eligibility guidelines.

I'm not debating that. I'm simply saying the guidelines are unjust and prejudiced. Of course when people make choices that go against the flow they have to live with the consequences, a subset of which can be unjust punishment. I agree... But it still doesn't make the punishment just.

Re:It's sad to think someone modded this troll

[DavidTC]

My education involved no student loans. I suspect there is a significant amount of the audience that is in the same boat.

If by 'significant amount' you mean '1/3', then sure.

2/3rds of college graduates have student loans.

But, incidentally, that's incorrect for the point you're trying to make.

The drug laws bar all federal aids, not just loans, but grants also.

Almost every college student has Federal grants. Just the Pell grant alone went to about 7,000,000 people in 2009, which is half of all college students...and that's just one of the many out there.

If you got through college without any Federal aid at all, you either did it before 1980 or so, or you're fairly wealthy. I suspect the actual answer is : You've forgotten or did not know about the aid you were getting.

Re:Good for Chase.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know... is it really a good idea to fire a guy holding a sledgehammer?

Re:Medical use

[Urza9814]

I'm a member of SSDP. I'm also a member of Amnesty International - and I've been with AI much longer, and am much more involved with them - I've worked with the regional office in D.C. on a couple campaigns even. But I don't think it is at all fair to say that Amnesty's cases are any more important than those of groups like SSDP. And even if you think they are, in this specific case Amnesty wasn't one of the organizations SSDP was competing against. Neither was the Red Cross. Or Doctors without Borders. The organizations that _won_ this contest included things like the "Stella Adler Studio Of Acting". Now, I'm not going to get into what organizations are more worthy of the money, but seriously, if it's worth giving to art education programs then surely it can be worth giving to drug education programs as well.

Now, as for SSDP and similar organizations not being worthy in general - it sounds like you are thinking we are NORML or other legalization organizations. We aren't. We are not a "weed pushing organization", we are a drug policy reform organization. Look at cases like University of Michigan student Derek Copp - he was shot, through his lungs and liver by a police officer over what was later described as "a few tablespoons" of marijuana. A _misdemeanor_ offense in the state of Michigan. He nearly died over it. Look at our prisons - how many hundreds of thosands of people are in prison for no reason other than minor drug offenses? These are not violent people, these are people whose crimes are far less severe than those that Amnesty tries to free. I mean honestly, Amnestly works to help people proven guilty of murder in some cases. So what, we should try to save those people, but if your crime is just smoking a joint, you deserve to rot in prison forever for it? SSDP fights to restore financial aid to students convicted of drug offenses. I have a friend, who's extremely intelligent but from a very poor family. He had financial aid covering his entire college expense. And he got caught once smoking weed. Now he's working at McDonald's trying to save up enough money to go back. SSDP works to help people like him. SSDP works to promote _real_ drug education - the amount of people addicted to illegal drugs hasn't changed at all in nearly a hundred years - yet in just a decade, through _education_ not incarceration, we managed to cut the number of people addicted to nicotine (one of the most addictive substances we know of) in half!

So tell me this - why is saving lives lost to drugs not worth anything? Why is providing a good education to good kids not worth anything? Why is keeping nonviolent offenders out of prison not a worthy cause? I mean ok, I can accept you ranking the red cross up there higher than groups like SSDP - I mean they're purely about saving lives. But things like Amnesty International - they are only different from SSDP because of their size. They're both extremely political organizations trying to save the lives and freedoms of people who _they_ feel haven't done anything wrong.

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[ShinmaWa]

The thing that I can't get over is that Chase is not required to do anything at all. Chase might not have gone about it the best possible way, but they did give a lot of money to charities, which they are under no obligation to do. I can't help but feel a little embarrassed for people who complain over how someone else gives their money away to charities.

Why can't we at least look on the bright side and be thankful that there are charities out there that now have more funds than they had before, rather than whining like spoiled children that they didn't do it they way we wanted them to?

Re:Nothing outrageous...

[BitZtream]

No, not everyone is pissed, most of the world doesn't give a shit.

The only people i see that are 'upset' are the douche bags they disqualified, and angsty emo kids/adults who just have to lash out against them man.

Normal everyday people not only don't know about it, but those of us who do, don't actually give a shit.

Re:Real easy solution...

[damn_registrars]

You seem to believe that public health is the motivation behind today's drug laws. That is a mistake. If you're sincerely interested in reducing consumption, you would allow people to be productive in their own personal ways, instead of penalizing them for attempting to tune out their miseries after stealing their land and enslaving them(yes, this economic system IS slavery).. You need to focus on less authoritarian methods.. prison is not the answer.

It is a shame that you are not willing to put your name - or even a fake name - behind your reply; we'll never know if you ever bother to read this or reply to it.

That said, I urge you to take a more balanced look at the issue of drug enforcement. If you step back you'll find that the enforcement of drug related offenses in reality rather closely mirrors those of alcohol related offenses. Sure, the pro-pot lobby loves to conjure up horror stories about brutalized old ladies but when you actually get to the bottom of those stories you realize two important things - one that they are exceedingly rare (occuring at about the same rate as most other law enforcement human errors), and two that the actual number of people who face criminal punishment for consumption of drugs (as a fraction of the number who use) is similar to the number of people who face criminal punishment for consumption of alcohol (as a fraction of the number who drink).

The main difference here is that for some reason a significant portion of pot users have sold themselves so thoroughly on factually dubious (at best) "safety" claims that they believe themselves to be in some way better than the local drunkard.

People who want to drink know that if they don't want to get busted for drinking stay home (or take a cab / use a designated driver) and stay out of public. Pot smokers with half a wit to them do the same. I know people who use pot responsibly and have never been in any legal trouble for it.