Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Dennis Kucinich

2008-03-16T17:46:59Z

Acronym: /* Iraq */

[[Image:Kucinich.png‎ |thumb|250x250px|]]
'''Dennis Kucinich''' is a [[liberal]] [[United States]] [[Congress]]man from [[Ohio]] and was candidate for [[Democrat]] presidential primary election in 2004 and 2008. He served as mayor of [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] from 1978 through 1980.

==History==

===Early Life===
Kucinich was born in [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] in 1946. For his high school education, Kucinich attended St. John Cantius, in Cleveland. After graduating from high school at the age of 17, Kucinich moved away from home and rented an apartment while enrolling in classes at [[Cleveland State University]]. Although he attended [[Cleveland State University]] for three years, he eventually received a masters degree in Speech and Communications from [[Case Western University]] in 1974. At the age of 23, Kucinich began his political career by running for Cleveland City Counsel.

===Mayor===
He won the election for City Counsel, and in 1977 ran for mayor of Cleveland and won the election, becoming the youngest person ever to lead a major American city<ref> http://kucinich.house.gov/Biography/</ref>. Kucinich married Sandra Lee McCarthy who he divorced in 1986<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/</ref>. When he took over the Mayor’s office in Cleveland, he was handed over a city in disastrous economic conditions, all of which would be compounded under his administration. Kucinich refused to grant a major bank in Cleveland, [[Cleveland Public Power]], request for the city to sell one of their municipal utility into the private sector. The disagreement between the bank and the mayor led to greater economic problems, causing the city to become the first to city to fall into [[default]] since the [[Great Depression]]<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/kucinich_bio.html</ref>. Mayor Kucinich appointed a 19 year old into a key position of office and also placed a 24-year-old, with less then a year experience as a [[stockbroker]], in office as city [[finance director]]. Kucinich also got into a fight with the popular Cleveland Police Chief, who he fired on live TV for insubordination. The [[Cleveland Police Department]] later went on strike protesting the Mayor’s budget cuts. The public outraged at his policy, gave him the nickname of, "Dennis the Menace,” and called for a recall election<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/</ref>. In 1978, as Kucinich threw out the first pitch wearing a bullet proof vest, nearly all 75,000 fans at the opening of [[Cleveland Municipal Stadium]] booed him. The recall took place and Kucinich just survived the recall by only 236 votes<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/kucinich_bio.html</ref>.

===Congress===
In 1979, the disgraced mayor ran for a second term, but lost to a [[Republican]], [[George Voinovich]]. With his political future looking bleak, former Mayor Kucinich moved to [[Los Angeles]]. He returned to Cleveland in 1994. Here he had success with his business, [[Kucinich Communications]], a company that produced industrial videos and brokered media time for clients. Kucinich ran for [[State Senator]] in 1994, and he won the election. He held this position for two terms. In 1996, Kucinich won a race for [[United States Congress]] and has been re-elected every two years since. In his last congressional election he received 66% of the [[Ohio]] vote. In 2004 Kucinich sought the [[Democratic Presidential nomination]] but lost. Kucinich currently is serving his 6th term in Congress, and second time as Democrat presidential primary contender.

==Political Positions==

===Abortion===
Kucinich’s position on abortion has been somewhat of a “flip-flop.” During Kucinich’s first three terms at congress he compiled a consistently pro-life record; this earned him a 95-percent approval rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] in 2000. Kucinich stated that he believed that “life begins at conception”.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp National Review, “Kucinich Choice”</ref>” However in 2003, he changed his position, stating that he was “pro-choice” and promised before an Iowa campaign crowed in 2003, "as president, I would protect that right [to abortion], and I would also make sure that appointees to the [[Supreme Court]] protected that right."<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp National Review, “Kucinich Choice”</ref>. The President of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Kate Michelman, stated that, “[Kucinich] understands that this [abortion] is a fundamental freedom. Do I think that's sincere? Yes I do."

===Health Care===
Like the majority of the Democratic primary candidates, Kucinich supports a type of socialized universal healthcare. He co-sponsored “Medicare for All Act”, with Congressman [[John Conyer]], this bill would create a [[universal healthcare]] system. The healthcare system would create a government program that would eliminate private health insurance, and buy prescription drugs in large amounts, the estimated cost for Kucinich’s plan would cost the United States about $2.2 trillion a year. until 2013<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/kucinich_05-29.html</ref>.

===Foreign Affairs===
Kucinich has said that he supports diplomatic foreign policy but not militaristic. He stated in an NBC News Democrat debate that, “I [am] opposed [to] the idea of using war as a matter of policy. I don't think it reflects America's greatness..”<ref>NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref> He calls Bush’s war on terrorism an excuse for aggressive action, similar to the position held by [[John Edwards]]. He said that, “Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president of the United States, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home: getting rid of all nuclear weapons, the United States participating in the chemical weapons convention, the biological weapons convention, the small arms treaty, the landmine treaty, joining the International Criminal Court, signing the Kyoto climate change treaty”. <ref>Votes and statements on foreign policy, http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Foreign_Policy.htm, NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref>

===Iraq===
Unlike many of his Democratic opponents, Kucinich opposed the war with Iraq since the very beginning. He states that Congress should use its power to withdraw funds from the war. Kucinich's bill would, as he stated, “call on the international community to provide peacekeepers and security forces that will move in as our troops leave. But we can’t do that until we determine we’re going to end the occupation. And we will do that when we stop the funding.” <ref>NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref> In 2007, Kucinich said that [[Vice President]], [[Dick Cheney]], should be impeached for ‘lying about Iraq’<ref>On the Issues, http://www.ontheissues.org/Government_Reform.htm#Dennis_Kucinich</ref>.

===Trade===
Kucinich does not support free trade agreements such as [[NAFTA]]. He has stated that as President, one of his first acts would be to end NAFTA. He also said that he wants to end other trade agreements such as the [[World Trade Organization]] and [[GATT]]. He says that free trade agreements must end because of United States citizen’s jobs are lost by the trade agreements, and also the lack of worker right provisions in the agreements. In replacement of the multilateral trade agreements, Kucinich supports bilateral trade<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Free_Trade.htm</ref>.

===Gun Control===
In 2003, Kucinich was given an F by the [[National Rifle Association]] in regards to gun control, indicating a pro-gun control record. Kucinich voted no on prohibiting suing gun makers and seller for gun misuse, he also voted no on decreasing gun waiting period from three days to one<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Gun_Control.htm</ref>.

===Energy and Oil===
Kucinich support the raising of [[CAFÉ]] standards from 27.5 mpg to 40 for cars and 40 mpg for SUV’s. He voted no on opening [[ANWR]] for oil drilling. He supports the use of renewable sources to replace fossil fuels, he stated, “I would lead this country on a new energy initiative. In the same way that President Kennedy decided to bring the academic and spiritual resources of this country to reach the moon, I intend to have a journey to planet Earth about sustainable and renewable energy. By the year 2010, I'll call upon Americans to assist in creating a program, not only of conservation, but of moving to renewable energy, away from oil, nuclear and coal, and towards wind and solar and geothermal, green hydrogen and biomass.”<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Energy_+_Oil.htm</ref>
===Immigration===
In 2004, Kucinich said that, “We also ought to agree that there ought to be amnesty for anyone who has been working in this country and would otherwise be denied rights.” He got a 0% rating from the [[Federation for American Immigration Reform]], mostly because of his ardent support for a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Kucinich also does not support the building of a fence between [[Mexico]] and the United States border. He also voted against a bill that would help in hospital’s reporting of illegal alien’s treatment<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich_VoteMatch.htm</ref>.

==Democratic Primary Campaign==

===Support===
On December 11, 2006, Dennis Kucinich announced that he would again run for the Democrat presidential nomination. Seen as a lower tier candidate, Kucinich lashed out at his Democrat opponents, calling them hypocritical for funding the [[Iraq War]], “Trust in the Democratic Party is on the line... What kind of credibility will our party have if we say we are opposed to the war, but continue to fund it?” Despite his push for the liberal base, Kucinich still remains as a lower tier candidate, poll numbers show that only 1% of Democrats voters support him<ref>Poll Numbers, http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm</ref>.

===Funding===
In first quarter fundraising Kucinich raised $756,567, more then 25 million behind the first quarter leader [[Hillary Clinton]]<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/democrat-obama-nears-clinton-first-quarter/story.aspx?guid=%7B841BDC61-B47D-4A74-87DB-1D3D49961CF4%7D</ref>. The second quarter fundraising for Kucinich was not released by his campaign. [[Chris Dodd]] and [[Mike Gravel]] also did not release fund raising estimates<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/second-quarter-fundraising/</ref>.

===Primary Debates===
After a July 2007 democrat primary debate, presidential primary candidate [[John Edwards]] said in a conversation with [[Hillary Clinton]] that "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.” Clinton agreed, and stated that the candidates they needed to cut were “not serious." Being a lower tier candidate, Kucinich attacked Edwards, "This is a serious matter, and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich said. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301891.html?hpid=sec-politics</ref>

In addition, he was excluded from a primary debate in Nevada, he sued for reentry and won. However, there has been no news since then concerning his reentry in to the debate.

He has withdrawn from the race and will pursue his seat in Congress. <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Dennis Kucinich|Articles about '''Dennis Kucinich''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>
==External Links==
*[http://kucinich.house.gov/ Official Website]
*[http://kucinich.house.gov/ Congressional Website]
*[http://ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm Voting Record]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kucinich, Dennis}}
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Dennis Kucinich

2008-03-16T17:44:20Z

Acronym: /* Early Life */

[[Image:Kucinich.png‎ |thumb|250x250px|]]
'''Dennis Kucinich''' is a [[liberal]] [[United States]] [[Congress]]man from [[Ohio]] and was candidate for [[Democrat]] presidential primary election in 2004 and 2008. He served as mayor of [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] from 1978 through 1980.

==History==

===Early Life===
Kucinich was born in [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] in 1946. For his high school education, Kucinich attended St. John Cantius, in Cleveland. After graduating from high school at the age of 17, Kucinich moved away from home and rented an apartment while enrolling in classes at [[Cleveland State University]]. Although he attended [[Cleveland State University]] for three years, he eventually received a masters degree in Speech and Communications from [[Case Western University]] in 1974. At the age of 23, Kucinich began his political career by running for Cleveland City Counsel.

===Mayor===
He won the election for City Counsel, and in 1977 ran for mayor of Cleveland and won the election, becoming the youngest person ever to lead a major American city<ref> http://kucinich.house.gov/Biography/</ref>. Kucinich married Sandra Lee McCarthy who he divorced in 1986<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/</ref>. When he took over the Mayor’s office in Cleveland, he was handed over a city in disastrous economic conditions, all of which would be compounded under his administration. Kucinich refused to grant a major bank in Cleveland, [[Cleveland Public Power]], request for the city to sell one of their municipal utility into the private sector. The disagreement between the bank and the mayor led to greater economic problems, causing the city to become the first to city to fall into [[default]] since the [[Great Depression]]<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/kucinich_bio.html</ref>. Mayor Kucinich appointed a 19 year old into a key position of office and also placed a 24-year-old, with less then a year experience as a [[stockbroker]], in office as city [[finance director]]. Kucinich also got into a fight with the popular Cleveland Police Chief, who he fired on live TV for insubordination. The [[Cleveland Police Department]] later went on strike protesting the Mayor’s budget cuts. The public outraged at his policy, gave him the nickname of, "Dennis the Menace,” and called for a recall election<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/</ref>. In 1978, as Kucinich threw out the first pitch wearing a bullet proof vest, nearly all 75,000 fans at the opening of [[Cleveland Municipal Stadium]] booed him. The recall took place and Kucinich just survived the recall by only 236 votes<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/kucinich_bio.html</ref>.

===Congress===
In 1979, the disgraced mayor ran for a second term, but lost to a [[Republican]], [[George Voinovich]]. With his political future looking bleak, former Mayor Kucinich moved to [[Los Angeles]]. He returned to Cleveland in 1994. Here he had success with his business, [[Kucinich Communications]], a company that produced industrial videos and brokered media time for clients. Kucinich ran for [[State Senator]] in 1994, and he won the election. He held this position for two terms. In 1996, Kucinich won a race for [[United States Congress]] and has been re-elected every two years since. In his last congressional election he received 66% of the [[Ohio]] vote. In 2004 Kucinich sought the [[Democratic Presidential nomination]] but lost. Kucinich currently is serving his 6th term in Congress, and second time as Democrat presidential primary contender.

==Political Positions==

===Abortion===
Kucinich’s position on abortion has been somewhat of a “flip-flop.” During Kucinich’s first three terms at congress he compiled a consistently pro-life record; this earned him a 95-percent approval rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] in 2000. Kucinich stated that he believed that “life begins at conception”.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp National Review, “Kucinich Choice”</ref>” However in 2003, he changed his position, stating that he was “pro-choice” and promised before an Iowa campaign crowed in 2003, "as president, I would protect that right [to abortion], and I would also make sure that appointees to the [[Supreme Court]] protected that right."<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp National Review, “Kucinich Choice”</ref>. The President of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Kate Michelman, stated that, “[Kucinich] understands that this [abortion] is a fundamental freedom. Do I think that's sincere? Yes I do."

===Health Care===
Like the majority of the Democratic primary candidates, Kucinich supports a type of socialized universal healthcare. He co-sponsored “Medicare for All Act”, with Congressman [[John Conyer]], this bill would create a [[universal healthcare]] system. The healthcare system would create a government program that would eliminate private health insurance, and buy prescription drugs in large amounts, the estimated cost for Kucinich’s plan would cost the United States about $2.2 trillion a year. until 2013<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/kucinich_05-29.html</ref>.

===Foreign Affairs===
Kucinich has said that he supports diplomatic foreign policy but not militaristic. He stated in an NBC News Democrat debate that, “I [am] opposed [to] the idea of using war as a matter of policy. I don't think it reflects America's greatness..”<ref>NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref> He calls Bush’s war on terrorism an excuse for aggressive action, similar to the position held by [[John Edwards]]. He said that, “Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president of the United States, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home: getting rid of all nuclear weapons, the United States participating in the chemical weapons convention, the biological weapons convention, the small arms treaty, the landmine treaty, joining the International Criminal Court, signing the Kyoto climate change treaty”. <ref>Votes and statements on foreign policy, http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Foreign_Policy.htm, NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref>

===Iraq===
Unlike many of his Democratic opponents, Kucinich opposed the war with Iraq since the very beginning. He states that Congress should use its power to withdraw funds from the war. Kucinich bill would, as he stated, “call on the international community to provide peacekeepers and security forces that will move in as our troops leave. But we can’t do that until we determine we’re going to end the occupation. And we will do that when we stop the funding.” <ref>NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref> In 2007, Kucinich said that [[Vice President]], [[Dick Cheney]], should be impeached for ‘lying about Iraq’<ref>On the Issues, http://www.ontheissues.org/Government_Reform.htm#Dennis_Kucinich</ref>.

===Trade===
Kucinich does not support free trade agreements such as [[NAFTA]]. He has stated that as President, one of his first acts would be to end NAFTA. He also said that he wants to end other trade agreements such as the [[World Trade Organization]] and [[GATT]]. He says that free trade agreements must end because of United States citizen’s jobs are lost by the trade agreements, and also the lack of worker right provisions in the agreements. In replacement of the multilateral trade agreements, Kucinich supports bilateral trade<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Free_Trade.htm</ref>.

===Gun Control===
In 2003, Kucinich was given an F by the [[National Rifle Association]] in regards to gun control, indicating a pro-gun control record. Kucinich voted no on prohibiting suing gun makers and seller for gun misuse, he also voted no on decreasing gun waiting period from three days to one<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Gun_Control.htm</ref>.

===Energy and Oil===
Kucinich support the raising of [[CAFÉ]] standards from 27.5 mpg to 40 for cars and 40 mpg for SUV’s. He voted no on opening [[ANWR]] for oil drilling. He supports the use of renewable sources to replace fossil fuels, he stated, “I would lead this country on a new energy initiative. In the same way that President Kennedy decided to bring the academic and spiritual resources of this country to reach the moon, I intend to have a journey to planet Earth about sustainable and renewable energy. By the year 2010, I'll call upon Americans to assist in creating a program, not only of conservation, but of moving to renewable energy, away from oil, nuclear and coal, and towards wind and solar and geothermal, green hydrogen and biomass.”<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Energy_+_Oil.htm</ref>
===Immigration===
In 2004, Kucinich said that, “We also ought to agree that there ought to be amnesty for anyone who has been working in this country and would otherwise be denied rights.” He got a 0% rating from the [[Federation for American Immigration Reform]], mostly because of his ardent support for a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Kucinich also does not support the building of a fence between [[Mexico]] and the United States border. He also voted against a bill that would help in hospital’s reporting of illegal alien’s treatment<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich_VoteMatch.htm</ref>.

==Democratic Primary Campaign==

===Support===
On December 11, 2006, Dennis Kucinich announced that he would again run for the Democrat presidential nomination. Seen as a lower tier candidate, Kucinich lashed out at his Democrat opponents, calling them hypocritical for funding the [[Iraq War]], “Trust in the Democratic Party is on the line... What kind of credibility will our party have if we say we are opposed to the war, but continue to fund it?” Despite his push for the liberal base, Kucinich still remains as a lower tier candidate, poll numbers show that only 1% of Democrats voters support him<ref>Poll Numbers, http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm</ref>.

===Funding===
In first quarter fundraising Kucinich raised $756,567, more then 25 million behind the first quarter leader [[Hillary Clinton]]<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/democrat-obama-nears-clinton-first-quarter/story.aspx?guid=%7B841BDC61-B47D-4A74-87DB-1D3D49961CF4%7D</ref>. The second quarter fundraising for Kucinich was not released by his campaign. [[Chris Dodd]] and [[Mike Gravel]] also did not release fund raising estimates<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/second-quarter-fundraising/</ref>.

===Primary Debates===
After a July 2007 democrat primary debate, presidential primary candidate [[John Edwards]] said in a conversation with [[Hillary Clinton]] that "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.” Clinton agreed, and stated that the candidates they needed to cut were “not serious." Being a lower tier candidate, Kucinich attacked Edwards, "This is a serious matter, and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich said. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301891.html?hpid=sec-politics</ref>

In addition, he was excluded from a primary debate in Nevada, he sued for reentry and won. However, there has been no news since then concerning his reentry in to the debate.

He has withdrawn from the race and will pursue his seat in Congress. <ref> http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/kucinich-drops-presidential-bid/ </ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Dennis Kucinich|Articles about '''Dennis Kucinich''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>
==External Links==
*[http://kucinich.house.gov/ Official Website]
*[http://kucinich.house.gov/ Congressional Website]
*[http://ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm Voting Record]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kucinich, Dennis}}
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:Evolution and creation

2008-01-21T02:31:01Z

Acronym:

== Exclusivity ==

The statistics of 15%, 40% and 45% demonstrate exclusiveness. I don't think that can be right. Surely there are plenty of Old Earth Creationists who also believe in evolution. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:56, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Hey Fly, howabout this guy above me? He disputes the statistics...

I added the citation banner in line with the second commandment, where are those numbers coming from as well as the rest of the info in the article? --A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. 21:31, 20 January 2008 (EST)--A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.

Talk:Evolution and creation

2008-01-21T02:30:46Z

Acronym:

Evolution and creation

2008-01-21T02:29:04Z

Acronym:

{{uncited}}
The [[theory of evolution]] and the two main doctrines of [[Creationism]] address three major aspects of the [[origins debate]]. About 15% of American adults are [[evolutionists]], 40% are [[Old Earth creationists]], and 45% are [[Young Earth creationists]].

==The fossil record==

Evolutionists regard [[fossil]]s as indicating the place and time when various species of life came into being, and when some of them went extinct. Geologists and biologists say that fossils indicate a record of forms of life coming into being over a period of hundreds of millions of years.

Old Earth creationists agree with evolutionists about the meaning of the fossil record.

It is only Young Earth creationists who deny the authenticity of the fossil record, mainly on Biblical grounds. The earth is less than 10,000 years old, so the fossils must also be less than 10,000 years old.

==Why new forms of life appeared==

Evolutionists say that physical causes (such as [[mutation]]) can alter the [[genetic]] material in the member of a species. These changes are passed on to the member's descendants, unless they are detrimental (see [[natural selection]]). If enough of these changes accumulate, completely new species come into being. Every species of life descended from other species, all the way back to one-celled organisms. Natural causes alone are sufficient to account for the emergence of all forms of life.

Old Earth creationists agree with evolutionists about mutations being caused by physical phenomena such as [[cosmic rays]]; and about genetic change being passed on to descendants (see [[microevolution]]). Not all accept [[common descent]], especially in regards to [[people]]. They also disagree about the sufficiency of natural causes: God must have intervened to make all major changes (see [[macroevolution]], [[missing link]]).

Young Earth creationists agree only about genetic changes within a species, such as the breeds of horses or dogs or cats, which they call "microevolution". They reject common descent. They believe that all species were created by [[God]] less than 10,000 years ago.

Evolution and creation

2008-01-21T02:22:55Z

Acronym:

The [[theory of evolution]] and the two main doctrines of [[Creationism]] address three major aspects of the [[origins debate]]. About 15% of American adults are [[evolutionists]], 40% are [[Old Earth creationists]], and 45% are [[Young Earth creationists]].<ref>[[citation needed]]</ref>

==The fossil record==

Evolutionists regard [[fossil]]s as indicating the place and time when various species of life came into being, and when some of them went extinct. Geologists and biologists say that fossils indicate a record of forms of life coming into being over a period of hundreds of millions of years.

Old Earth creationists agree with evolutionists about the meaning of the fossil record.

It is only Young Earth creationists who deny the authenticity of the fossil record, mainly on Biblical grounds. The earth is less than 10,000 years old, so the fossils must also be less than 10,000 years old.

==Why new forms of life appeared==

Evolutionists say that physical causes (such as [[mutation]]) can alter the [[genetic]] material in the member of a species. These changes are passed on to the member's descendants, unless they are detrimental (see [[natural selection]]). If enough of these changes accumulate, completely new species come into being. Every species of life descended from other species, all the way back to one-celled organisms. Natural causes alone are sufficient to account for the emergence of all forms of life.

Old Earth creationists agree with evolutionists about mutations being caused by physical phenomena such as [[cosmic rays]]; and about genetic change being passed on to descendants (see [[microevolution]]). Not all accept [[common descent]], especially in regards to [[people]]. They also disagree about the sufficiency of natural causes: God must have intervened to make all major changes (see [[macroevolution]], [[missing link]]).

Young Earth creationists agree only about genetic changes within a species, such as the breeds of horses or dogs or cats, which they call "microevolution". They reject common descent. They believe that all species were created by [[God]] less than 10,000 years ago.

Evolution and creation

2008-01-21T02:20:13Z

Acronym:

The [[theory of evolution]] and the two main doctrines of [[Creationism]] address three major aspects of the [[origins debate]]. About 15% of American adults are [[evolutionists]], 40% are [[Old Earth creationists]], and 45% are [[Young Earth creationists]][[citation needed]].

==The fossil record==

Evolutionists regard [[fossil]]s as indicating the place and time when various species of life came into being, and when some of them went extinct. Geologists and biologists say that fossils indicate a record of forms of life coming into being over a period of hundreds of millions of years.

Old Earth creationists agree with evolutionists about the meaning of the fossil record.

It is only Young Earth creationists who deny the authenticity of the fossil record, mainly on Biblical grounds. The earth is less than 10,000 years old, so the fossils must also be less than 10,000 years old.

==Why new forms of life appeared==

Evolutionists say that physical causes (such as [[mutation]]) can alter the [[genetic]] material in the member of a species. These changes are passed on to the member's descendants, unless they are detrimental (see [[natural selection]]). If enough of these changes accumulate, completely new species come into being. Every species of life descended from other species, all the way back to one-celled organisms. Natural causes alone are sufficient to account for the emergence of all forms of life.

Old Earth creationists agree with evolutionists about mutations being caused by physical phenomena such as [[cosmic rays]]; and about genetic change being passed on to descendants (see [[microevolution]]). Not all accept [[common descent]], especially in regards to [[people]]. They also disagree about the sufficiency of natural causes: God must have intervened to make all major changes (see [[macroevolution]], [[missing link]]).

Young Earth creationists agree only about genetic changes within a species, such as the breeds of horses or dogs or cats, which they call "microevolution". They reject common descent. They believe that all species were created by [[God]] less than 10,000 years ago.

Dennis Kucinich

2008-01-20T19:20:31Z

Acronym: /* Foreign Affairs */

[[Image:Kucinich.png‎ |thumb|250x250px|]]
'''Dennis Kucinich''' is a [[liberal]] [[United States]] [[Congress]]man from [[Ohio]] and candidate for [[Democrat]] presidential primary election in 2008. He served as mayor of [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] from 1978 through 1980.

==History==

===Early Life===
Kucinich was born in [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] in 1946. For his high school education, Kucinich attended St. John Cantius, in Cleveland. After graduating from high school at the age of 17, Kucinich moved away from home and rented an apartment while enrolling in classes at [[Cleveland State University]]. Although he attended [[Cleveland State University]] for three year, he eventually received a masters degree in Speech and Communications from [[Case Western University]] in 1974. At the age of 23, Kucinich began his political career by running for Cleveland City Counsel.

===Mayor===
He won the election for City Counsel, and in 1977 ran for mayor of Cleveland and won the election, becoming the youngest person ever to lead a major American city<ref> http://kucinich.house.gov/Biography/</ref>. Kucinich married Sandra Lee McCarthy who he divorced in 1986<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/</ref>. When he took over the Mayor’s office in Cleveland, he was handed over a city in disastrous economic conditions, all of which would be compounded under his administration. Kucinich refused to grant a major bank in Cleveland, [[Cleveland Public Power]], request for the city to sell one of their municipal utility into the private sector. The disagreement between the bank and the mayor led to greater economic problems, causing the city to become the first to city to fall into [[default]] since the [[Great Depression]]<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/kucinich_bio.html</ref>. Mayor Kucinich appointed a 19 year old into a key position of office and also placed a 24-year-old, with less then a year experience as a [[stockbroker]], in office as city [[finance director]]. Kucinich also got into a fight with the popular Cleveland Police Chief, who he fired on live TV for insubordination. The [[Cleveland Police Department]] later went on strike protesting the Mayor’s budget cuts. The public outraged at his policy, gave him the nickname of, "Dennis the Menace,” and called for a recall election<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/</ref>. In 1978, as Kucinich threw out the first pitch wearing a bullet proof vest, nearly all 75,000 fans at the opening of [[Cleveland Municipal Stadium]] booed him. The recall took place and Kucinich just survived the recall by only 236 votes<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/kucinich_bio.html</ref>.

===Congress===
In 1979, the disgraced mayor ran for a second term, but lost to a [[Republican]], [[George Voinovich]]. With his political future looking bleak, former Mayor Kucinich moved to [[Los Angeles]]. He returned to Cleveland in 1994. Here he had success with his business, [[Kucinich Communications]], a company that produced industrial videos and brokered media time for clients. Kucinich ran for [[State Senator]] in 1994, and he won the election. He held this position for two terms. In 1996, Kucinich won a race for [[United States Congress]] and has been re-elected every two years since. In his last congressional election he received 66% of the [[Ohio]] vote. In 2004 Kucinich sought the [[Democratic Presidential nomination]] but lost. Kucinich currently is serving his 6th term in Congress, and second time as Democrat presidential primary contender.

==Political Positions==

===Abortion===
Kucinich’s position on abortion has been somewhat of a “flip-flop.” During Kucinich’s first three terms at congress he compiled a consistently pro-life record; this earned him a 95-percent approval rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] in 2000. Kucinich stated that he believed that “life begins at conception”.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp National Review, “Kucinich Choice”</ref>” However in 2003, he changed his position, stating that he was “pro-choice” and promised before an Iowa campaign crowed in 2003, "as president, I would protect that right [to abortion], and I would also make sure that appointees to the [[Supreme Court]] protected that right."<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp National Review, “Kucinich Choice”</ref>. The President of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Kate Michelman, stated that, “[Kucinich] understands that this [abortion] is a fundamental freedom. Do I think that's sincere? Yes I do."

===Health Care===
Like the majority of the Democratic primary candidates, Kucinich supports a type of socialized universal healthcare. He co-sponsored “Medicare for All Act”, with Congressman [[John Conyer]], this bill would create a [[universal healthcare]] system. The healthcare system would create a government program that would eliminate private health insurance, and buy prescription drugs in large amounts, the estimated cost for Kucinich’s plan would cost the United States about $2.2 trillion a year. until 2013<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/kucinich_05-29.html</ref>.

===Foreign Affairs===
Kucinich has said that he supports diplomatic foreign policy but not militaristic. He stated in an NBC News Democrat debate that, “I [am] opposed [to] the idea of using war as a matter of policy. I don't think it reflects America's greatness..”<ref>NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref> He calls Bush’s war on terrorism an excuse for aggressive action, similar to the position held by [[John Edwards]]. He said that, “Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president of the United States, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home: getting rid of all nuclear weapons, the United States participating in the chemical weapons convention, the biological weapons convention, the small arms treaty, the landmine treaty, joining the International Criminal Court, signing the Kyoto climate change treaty”. <ref>Votes and statements on foreign policy, http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Foreign_Policy.htm, NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref>

===Iraq===
Unlike many of his Democratic opponents, Kucinich opposed the war with Iraq since the very beginning. He states that Congress should use its power to withdraw funds from the war. Kucinich bill would, as he stated, “call on the international community to provide peacekeepers and security forces that will move in as our troops leave. But we can’t do that until we determine we’re going to end the occupation. And we will do that when we stop the funding.” <ref>NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref> In 2007, Kucinich said that [[Vice President]], [[Dick Cheney]], should be impeached for ‘lying about Iraq’<ref>On the Issues, http://www.ontheissues.org/Government_Reform.htm#Dennis_Kucinich</ref>.

===Trade===
Kucinich does not support free trade agreements such as [[NAFTA]]. He has stated that as President, one of his first acts would be to end NAFTA. He also said that he wants to end other trade agreements such as the [[World Trade Organization]] and [[GATT]]. He says that free trade agreements must end because of United States citizen’s jobs are lost by the trade agreements, and also the lack of worker right provisions in the agreements. In replacement of the multilateral trade agreements, Kucinich supports bilateral trade<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Free_Trade.htm</ref>.

===Gun Control===
In 2003, Kucinich was given an F by the [[National Rifle Association]] in regards to gun control, indicating a pro-gun control record. Kucinich voted no on prohibiting suing gun makers and seller for gun misuse, he also voted no on decreasing gun waiting period from three days to one<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Gun_Control.htm</ref>.

===Energy and Oil===
Kucinich support the raising of [[CAFÉ]] standards from 27.5 mpg to 40 for cars and 40 mpg for SUV’s. He voted no on opening [[ANWR]] for oil drilling. He supports the use of renewable sources to replace fossil fuels, he stated, “I would lead this country on a new energy initiative. In the same way that President Kennedy decided to bring the academic and spiritual resources of this country to reach the moon, I intend to have a journey to planet Earth about sustainable and renewable energy. By the year 2010, I'll call upon Americans to assist in creating a program, not only of conservation, but of moving to renewable energy, away from oil, nuclear and coal, and towards wind and solar and geothermal, green hydrogen and biomass.”<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Energy_+_Oil.htm</ref>
===Immigration===
In 2004, Kucinich said that, “We also ought to agree that there ought to be amnesty for anyone who has been working in this country and would otherwise be denied rights.” He got a 0% rating from the [[Federation for American Immigration Reform]], mostly because of his ardent support for a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Kucinich also does not support the building of a fence between [[Mexico]] and the United States border. He also voted against a bill that would help in hospital’s reporting of illegal alien’s treatment<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich_VoteMatch.htm</ref>.

==Democratic Primary Campaign==

===Support===
On December 11, 2006, Dennis Kucinich announced that he would again run for the Democrat presidential nomination. Seen as a lower tier candidate, Kucinich lashed out at his Democrat opponents, calling them hypocritical for funding the [[Iraq War]], “Trust in the Democratic Party is on the line... What kind of credibility will our party have if we say we are opposed to the war, but continue to fund it?” Despite his push for the liberal base, Kucinich still remains as a lower tier candidate, poll numbers show that only 1% of Democrats voters support him<ref>Poll Numbers, http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm</ref>.

===Funding===
In first quarter fundraising Kucinich raised $756,567, more then 25 million behind the first quarter leader [[Hillary Clinton]]<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/democrat-obama-nears-clinton-first-quarter/story.aspx?guid=%7B841BDC61-B47D-4A74-87DB-1D3D49961CF4%7D</ref>. The second quarter fundraising for Kucinich was not released by his campaign. [[Chris Dodd]] and [[Mike Gravel]] also did not release fund raising estimates<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/second-quarter-fundraising/</ref>.

===Primary Debates===
After a July 2007 democrat primary debate, presidential primary candidate [[John Edwards]] said in a conversation with [[Hillary Clinton]] that "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.” Clinton agreed, and stated that the candidates they needed to cut were “not serious." Being a lower tier candidate, Kucinich attacked Edwards, "This is a serious matter, and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich said. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301891.html?hpid=sec-politics</ref>

In addition, he was excluded from a primary debate in Nevada, he sued for reentry and won. However, there has been no news since then concerning his reentry in to the debate.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Dennis Kucinich|Articles about '''Dennis Kucinich''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>
==External Links==
*[http://kucinich.house.gov/ Official Website]
*[http://kucinich.house.gov/ Congressional Website]
*[http://ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm Voting Record]
{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kucinich, Dennis}}
[[Category: 2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Dennis Kucinich

2008-01-20T19:20:08Z

Acronym: /* Foreign Affairs */

[[Image:Kucinich.png‎ |thumb|250x250px|]]
'''Dennis Kucinich''' is a [[liberal]] [[United States]] [[Congress]]man from [[Ohio]] and candidate for [[Democrat]] presidential primary election in 2008. He served as mayor of [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] from 1978 through 1980.

==History==

===Early Life===
Kucinich was born in [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] in 1946. For his high school education, Kucinich attended St. John Cantius, in Cleveland. After graduating from high school at the age of 17, Kucinich moved away from home and rented an apartment while enrolling in classes at [[Cleveland State University]]. Although he attended [[Cleveland State University]] for three year, he eventually received a masters degree in Speech and Communications from [[Case Western University]] in 1974. At the age of 23, Kucinich began his political career by running for Cleveland City Counsel.

===Mayor===
He won the election for City Counsel, and in 1977 ran for mayor of Cleveland and won the election, becoming the youngest person ever to lead a major American city<ref> http://kucinich.house.gov/Biography/</ref>. Kucinich married Sandra Lee McCarthy who he divorced in 1986<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/</ref>. When he took over the Mayor’s office in Cleveland, he was handed over a city in disastrous economic conditions, all of which would be compounded under his administration. Kucinich refused to grant a major bank in Cleveland, [[Cleveland Public Power]], request for the city to sell one of their municipal utility into the private sector. The disagreement between the bank and the mayor led to greater economic problems, causing the city to become the first to city to fall into [[default]] since the [[Great Depression]]<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/kucinich_bio.html</ref>. Mayor Kucinich appointed a 19 year old into a key position of office and also placed a 24-year-old, with less then a year experience as a [[stockbroker]], in office as city [[finance director]]. Kucinich also got into a fight with the popular Cleveland Police Chief, who he fired on live TV for insubordination. The [[Cleveland Police Department]] later went on strike protesting the Mayor’s budget cuts. The public outraged at his policy, gave him the nickname of, "Dennis the Menace,” and called for a recall election<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/763/000024691/</ref>. In 1978, as Kucinich threw out the first pitch wearing a bullet proof vest, nearly all 75,000 fans at the opening of [[Cleveland Municipal Stadium]] booed him. The recall took place and Kucinich just survived the recall by only 236 votes<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/kucinich_bio.html</ref>.

===Congress===
In 1979, the disgraced mayor ran for a second term, but lost to a [[Republican]], [[George Voinovich]]. With his political future looking bleak, former Mayor Kucinich moved to [[Los Angeles]]. He returned to Cleveland in 1994. Here he had success with his business, [[Kucinich Communications]], a company that produced industrial videos and brokered media time for clients. Kucinich ran for [[State Senator]] in 1994, and he won the election. He held this position for two terms. In 1996, Kucinich won a race for [[United States Congress]] and has been re-elected every two years since. In his last congressional election he received 66% of the [[Ohio]] vote. In 2004 Kucinich sought the [[Democratic Presidential nomination]] but lost. Kucinich currently is serving his 6th term in Congress, and second time as Democrat presidential primary contender.

==Political Positions==

===Abortion===
Kucinich’s position on abortion has been somewhat of a “flip-flop.” During Kucinich’s first three terms at congress he compiled a consistently pro-life record; this earned him a 95-percent approval rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] in 2000. Kucinich stated that he believed that “life begins at conception”.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp National Review, “Kucinich Choice”</ref>” However in 2003, he changed his position, stating that he was “pro-choice” and promised before an Iowa campaign crowed in 2003, "as president, I would protect that right [to abortion], and I would also make sure that appointees to the [[Supreme Court]] protected that right."<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp National Review, “Kucinich Choice”</ref>. The President of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Kate Michelman, stated that, “[Kucinich] understands that this [abortion] is a fundamental freedom. Do I think that's sincere? Yes I do."

===Health Care===
Like the majority of the Democratic primary candidates, Kucinich supports a type of socialized universal healthcare. He co-sponsored “Medicare for All Act”, with Congressman [[John Conyer]], this bill would create a [[universal healthcare]] system. The healthcare system would create a government program that would eliminate private health insurance, and buy prescription drugs in large amounts, the estimated cost for Kucinich’s plan would cost the United States about $2.2 trillion a year. until 2013<ref> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/kucinich_05-29.html</ref>.

===Foreign Affairs===
Kucinich has said that he supports diplomatic foreign policy but not militaristic. He stated in an NBC News Democrat debate that, “I [am] opposed the idea of using war as a matter of policy. I don't think it reflects America's greatness..”<ref>NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref> He calls Bush’s war on terrorism an excuse for aggressive action, similar to the position held by [[John Edwards]]. He said that, “Because the fact of the matter is that the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war. As president of the United States, I intend to take America in a different direction, rejecting war as an instrument of policy, reconnecting with the nations of the world, so that we can address the real issues that affect security all over the globe and affect our security at home: getting rid of all nuclear weapons, the United States participating in the chemical weapons convention, the biological weapons convention, the small arms treaty, the landmine treaty, joining the International Criminal Court, signing the Kyoto climate change treaty”. <ref>Votes and statements on foreign policy, http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Foreign_Policy.htm, NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref>

===Iraq===
Unlike many of his Democratic opponents, Kucinich opposed the war with Iraq since the very beginning. He states that Congress should use its power to withdraw funds from the war. Kucinich bill would, as he stated, “call on the international community to provide peacekeepers and security forces that will move in as our troops leave. But we can’t do that until we determine we’re going to end the occupation. And we will do that when we stop the funding.” <ref>NBC News Debate Transcript, http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-042607-krg-debate_part1.1023b3ba.html</ref> In 2007, Kucinich said that [[Vice President]], [[Dick Cheney]], should be impeached for ‘lying about Iraq’<ref>On the Issues, http://www.ontheissues.org/Government_Reform.htm#Dennis_Kucinich</ref>.

===Trade===
Kucinich does not support free trade agreements such as [[NAFTA]]. He has stated that as President, one of his first acts would be to end NAFTA. He also said that he wants to end other trade agreements such as the [[World Trade Organization]] and [[GATT]]. He says that free trade agreements must end because of United States citizen’s jobs are lost by the trade agreements, and also the lack of worker right provisions in the agreements. In replacement of the multilateral trade agreements, Kucinich supports bilateral trade<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Free_Trade.htm</ref>.

===Gun Control===
In 2003, Kucinich was given an F by the [[National Rifle Association]] in regards to gun control, indicating a pro-gun control record. Kucinich voted no on prohibiting suing gun makers and seller for gun misuse, he also voted no on decreasing gun waiting period from three days to one<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Gun_Control.htm</ref>.

===Energy and Oil===
Kucinich support the raising of [[CAFÉ]] standards from 27.5 mpg to 40 for cars and 40 mpg for SUV’s. He voted no on opening [[ANWR]] for oil drilling. He supports the use of renewable sources to replace fossil fuels, he stated, “I would lead this country on a new energy initiative. In the same way that President Kennedy decided to bring the academic and spiritual resources of this country to reach the moon, I intend to have a journey to planet Earth about sustainable and renewable energy. By the year 2010, I'll call upon Americans to assist in creating a program, not only of conservation, but of moving to renewable energy, away from oil, nuclear and coal, and towards wind and solar and geothermal, green hydrogen and biomass.”<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Energy_+_Oil.htm</ref>
===Immigration===
In 2004, Kucinich said that, “We also ought to agree that there ought to be amnesty for anyone who has been working in this country and would otherwise be denied rights.” He got a 0% rating from the [[Federation for American Immigration Reform]], mostly because of his ardent support for a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Kucinich also does not support the building of a fence between [[Mexico]] and the United States border. He also voted against a bill that would help in hospital’s reporting of illegal alien’s treatment<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich_VoteMatch.htm</ref>.

==Democratic Primary Campaign==

===Support===
On December 11, 2006, Dennis Kucinich announced that he would again run for the Democrat presidential nomination. Seen as a lower tier candidate, Kucinich lashed out at his Democrat opponents, calling them hypocritical for funding the [[Iraq War]], “Trust in the Democratic Party is on the line... What kind of credibility will our party have if we say we are opposed to the war, but continue to fund it?” Despite his push for the liberal base, Kucinich still remains as a lower tier candidate, poll numbers show that only 1% of Democrats voters support him<ref>Poll Numbers, http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm</ref>.

===Funding===
In first quarter fundraising Kucinich raised $756,567, more then 25 million behind the first quarter leader [[Hillary Clinton]]<ref>http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/democrat-obama-nears-clinton-first-quarter/story.aspx?guid=%7B841BDC61-B47D-4A74-87DB-1D3D49961CF4%7D</ref>. The second quarter fundraising for Kucinich was not released by his campaign. [[Chris Dodd]] and [[Mike Gravel]] also did not release fund raising estimates<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/second-quarter-fundraising/</ref>.

===Primary Debates===
After a July 2007 democrat primary debate, presidential primary candidate [[John Edwards]] said in a conversation with [[Hillary Clinton]] that "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.” Clinton agreed, and stated that the candidates they needed to cut were “not serious." Being a lower tier candidate, Kucinich attacked Edwards, "This is a serious matter, and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich said. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301891.html?hpid=sec-politics</ref>

In addition, he was excluded from a primary debate in Nevada, he sued for reentry and won. However, there has been no news since then concerning his reentry in to the debate.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Dennis Kucinich|Articles about '''Dennis Kucinich''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>
==External Links==
*[http://kucinich.house.gov/ Official Website]
*[http://kucinich.house.gov/ Congressional Website]
*[http://ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm Voting Record]
{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kucinich, Dennis}}
[[Category: 2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:Agnosticism

2008-01-20T18:56:13Z

Acronym:

''Agnostics differ from regular atheists in that they do not deny God's existence''

I hesitate to get involved in theological debate here; still less to make changes without agreement, but I should like to suggest that the word 'regular' be deleted from the above sentence. As written it suggests that Agnostics are not 'regular' atheists - ie, that they are some sort of (irregular) atheist. As an agnostic (type 2) myself I'd say that is not the case. The rest of the article makes it quite clear. Agnostics are not atheists, regular or otherwise. [[User:Alba|Alba]] 18:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== "God's" ==

''"Agnosticism is the belief that '''God's''' existence or non existence is unknowable."''

Isn't agnosticism the belief that '''a''' God's existence is unknowable? This article, in my opinion, sounds like it's saying agnosticism is the belief that solely the existence of the Christian God is unknowable.

Could the "God's" be changed to ''"the existence of a diety"'' or something like that?
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:God, with a capital 'G', refers to the real God. Christians aren't the only ones who write the name of God that way. It differs from, say, a belief that the 'golden calf' (a god) isn't knowable. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I think they were referring to any higher power. {{unsigned|Mjac1103}}

Why is this page locked???
Would like to add:
"
==See Also==
*[[Religion]]
*[[Ignosticism]]
*[[God]]
Etcetera..."
[[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

Talk:Agnosticism

2008-01-20T18:55:50Z

Acronym:

''Agnostics differ from regular atheists in that they do not deny God's existence''

I hesitate to get involved in theological debate here; still less to make changes without agreement, but I should like to suggest that the word 'regular' be deleted from the above sentence. As written it suggests that Agnostics are not 'regular' atheists - ie, that they are some sort of (irregular) atheist. As an agnostic (type 2) myself I'd say that is not the case. The rest of the article makes it quite clear. Agnostics are not atheists, regular or otherwise. [[User:Alba|Alba]] 18:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== "God's" ==

''"Agnosticism is the belief that '''God's''' existence or non existence is unknowable."''

Isn't agnosticism the belief that '''a''' God's existence is unknowable? This article, in my opinion, sounds like it's saying agnosticism is the belief that solely the existence of the Christian God is unknowable.

Could the "God's" be changed to ''"the existence of a diety"'' or something like that?
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:God, with a capital 'G', refers to the real God. Christians aren't the only ones who write the name of God that way. It differs from, say, a belief that the 'golden calf' (a god) isn't knowable. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I think they were referring to any higher power. {{unsigned|Mjac1103}}

Why is this page locked???
Would like to add:
"==See Also==
*[[Religion]]
*[[Ignosticism]]
*[[God]]
Etcetera..." [[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

Talk:Agnosticism

2008-01-20T18:55:13Z

Acronym:

''Agnostics differ from regular atheists in that they do not deny God's existence''

I hesitate to get involved in theological debate here; still less to make changes without agreement, but I should like to suggest that the word 'regular' be deleted from the above sentence. As written it suggests that Agnostics are not 'regular' atheists - ie, that they are some sort of (irregular) atheist. As an agnostic (type 2) myself I'd say that is not the case. The rest of the article makes it quite clear. Agnostics are not atheists, regular or otherwise. [[User:Alba|Alba]] 18:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== "God's" ==

''"Agnosticism is the belief that '''God's''' existence or non existence is unknowable."''

Isn't agnosticism the belief that '''a''' God's existence is unknowable? This article, in my opinion, sounds like it's saying agnosticism is the belief that solely the existence of the Christian God is unknowable.

Could the "God's" be changed to ''"the existence of a diety"'' or something like that?
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:God, with a capital 'G', refers to the real God. Christians aren't the only ones who write the name of God that way. It differs from, say, a belief that the 'golden calf' (a god) isn't knowable. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I think they were referring to any higher power. {{unsigned|Mjac1103}}

Why is this page locked???
Would like to add:
==See Also==
*[[Religion]]
*[[Ignosticism]]
*[[God]]
Etcetera...

Liberal

2008-01-20T18:31:47Z

Acronym:

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

A '''Liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:

* denial of inherent [[gender differences]] and wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the [[military]]
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* taxpayer-funded health care
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* support of [[political correctness]] <ref>[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007</ref>
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms from any religion
* compelled taxpayer funding of government [[school]]s for nearly all ages
* government-controlled medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* limit [[conservative]] talk radio by reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|top|<center>One satirist's conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

== Liberalism in North America today ==
{{stub|section}}
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref>

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, "liberal" is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]

Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal Bias]]
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Liberal bias

2008-01-20T18:30:26Z

Acronym:

[[Image:Stossel.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|[[John Stossel]]]]

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies. This bias pervades encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet. It is expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media and by teachers in [[public school]] and in many private schools. It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]].

==The Media Confronts Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has a "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In regards to the [[Western World]], although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]

==U.S. Universities==

Liberal bias is everywhere on American university campuses. Leftist professors dominate the universities. "Because of this slant, it is virtually impossible for political balance in our universities and, as a result, the curriculum, the culture, the values, the atmosphere and the underlying currents of thought resemble indoctrination." <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/4134_2453.pdf?PHPSESSID=14d1b6b722914bc403636c401f9792ee Universities' liberal bias is real], Fred Singer, [[Denver Post]], January 29, 2003</ref>

"College faculties are not only mostly liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have imagined."
<ref>[http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1809 Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom], Cal Thomas, [[Townhall]], March 31, 2005</ref>

"The political tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If you're looking for balance, you're not going to find it."
<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html Liberal Bias on Campus], John Eberhard, [[Intellectual Conservative]], June 18, 2004</ref>

Even the students admit the liberal bias. "Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs."
<ref>[http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/27969 Liberal Bias is A-OK], J.D. Porter, Columbia Spectator, November 9, 2007</ref>

==Media==

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives. ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war."

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciousness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but [[moral]]ly lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with [[Hate speech|campus speech codes]] and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of [[taboo]]s. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that [[Moral relativism|reality is optional]].

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘[[living constitution]]’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of [[ideological]] crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

[[category:politics]]
[[Category: Deceit]]

Florida Marlins

2008-01-20T18:11:31Z

Acronym:

[[Image:Floridamarlins logo.gif|right]]
The '''Florida Marlins''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team located in [[Miami]], [[Florida]]. They play in the [[National League]] East Division.

There has been considerable talk of the team moving or building a new stadium in the coming years. The team won the [[World Series]] in 1997 and 2003, its only playoff berths, after winning the wild card both years.. Dolphin Stadium, home of the Marlins, has hosted two World Series champions.

'''National League Pennants:''' 2 (1997, 2003)

'''Playoff Berths:''' 2 (1997, 2003)

== Team ==
=== Offensive ===
'''Catcher'''
*[[Miguel Olivo ]]

'''1st Base'''
*[[Aaron Boone]]

'''2d Base'''
*[[Dan Uggla]]

'''Shortstop'''
*[[Hanley Ramirez]]

'''3d Base'''
*[[Miguel Cabrera]]

'''Left Field'''
*[[Josh Willingham]]

'''Center Field'''
*[[Alfredo Amezaga]]

'''Right Field'''
*[[Jeremy Hermida]]

'''Backup Outfielder'''
*[[Reggie Abercrombie]]

=== Pitching Staff ===

'''Starting Pitchers'''
*[[Dontrelle Willis ]]
*[[Scott Olsen]]
*[[Sergio Mitre]]
*[[Byung-Hyun Kim]]
*[[Wes Obermueller]]

'''Relievers'''
*[[Taylor Tankersley]]
*[[Renyel Pinto]]
*[[Randy Messenger]]
*[[Matt Lindstrom]]
*[[Lee Gardner]]
*[[Justin Miller]]

'''Closer'''
*[[Kevin Gregg]]

== Related Links ==
*[http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=fla Official Team Website]
*[http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/team/depth_chart/index.jsp?c_id=fla Team Depth Chart]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_national}}

Homosexual act

2008-01-20T17:57:49Z

Acronym:

The term '''homosexual act''' can be applied to any romantic or erotic interaction between persons of the same sex.

Attitudes towards such acts vary, subjectively, from culture to culture, and from individual to individual. Socially liberal individuals cite references to and records of sexual relations between persons of the same sex in almost every human civilization throughout history. They would argue that this makes the acts acceptable.

However, such acts are forbidden by religious texts such as the [[Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]]. These support the idea that a subjective cultural ''imprimatur'' of acceptability does not save the objective immorality of the act.

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Homosexual act

2008-01-20T17:57:10Z

Acronym:

The term '''homosexual act''' can be applied to any romantic or erotic interaction between persons of the same sex.

Attitudes towards such acts vary, subjectively, from culture to culture, and from individual to individual. Socially liberal individuals cite references to and records of sexual relations between persons of the same sex in almost every human civilization throughout history. THey would argue that this makes the acts acceptable.

However, such acts are forbidden by religious texts such as the [[Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]]. These support the idea that a subjective cultural ''imprimatur'' of acceptability does not save the objective immorality of the act.

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Talk:Abortion

2008-01-19T19:30:57Z

Acronym: /* Your definition is misleading and downright false. */

'''
== Your definition is misleading and downright false. ==
'''

I would just like to point out the the term abortion is used in the medical community to describe the termination of a pregnancy both voluntarily and involuntarily (otherwise known as a miscarriage)-- This came to my attention when I read a story about a woman who experienced severe degradation at a gynecologist's appointment for noting on her medical intake form that she had several abortions. In her case she was referring to a series of miscarriages. I don't think any person should be made to feel that horrible under any circumstance, but the fact that it was a complete misunderstanding based on existing personal beliefs and unwillingness on behalf of the doctor to even investigate before making her remarks makes it even more upsetting. If a doctor doesn't know something like this, how can the public be expected to when you perpetuate the wrong idea? This isn't a bias, its a fact. Words are very powerful and its wrong to tell readers only what you want them to think or know and leave out the rest. It's disrespectful.

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

The image presented at the beginning of the article is of a healthy fetus nearing 40 weeks (very close to birth) and is not a probable subject or candidate for abortion. [[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

==Maintain the neutrality of the article==
Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--[[User:Nosferatu.feuertote|Nosferatu.feuertote]] 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a "billion dollar industry", neither of the linked "references" make any claims about the value of the "abortion industry". I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first "source":

Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents.

The second "source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual.

Brian

"The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." Is a bit weasly. Hippocrates also would not perform surgery, and definitely interfering with the heart was out of the question. But we know how many people are prevented from dying through heart-surgery. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the oath in the first paragraph. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 15:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid.
--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference

That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

: It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

:At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

:While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Abortiontv.com? Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

The Bible clearly indicates in Jeremiah 1 and the Psalms that God regards an unborn baby as being a fully human being separate from any other, and as such, is subject to the protection from being murdered in the 6th Commandment. The Bible also has a great deal of historical evidence to support its accuracy. A read through Josh Mcdowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

:::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion
Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

== Reply to the above ==

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet: http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm

and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: http://www.cplusc.co.uk/risks.html (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/04/04/nmeat04.xml

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23311428.htm --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]] 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Every study denying an ABC link that I have looked at, such as [[Harvard Abortion Study]], I have found to be fraudulent or misleading. How many of those pro-abortion studies have you actually looked at? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Denying, pro-abortion? LOL, nice wording. Your opinions on these studies '''do not permit''' you to pretend they don't exist and not include them in the article. I have read recent studies, and GASP, I find them flawed regurgitations of scientific consensus. Doesn't excuse your excuses and assumptions about me and the researchers. After you're done getting over yourself and "pro-abortion" notions (people/scientists are allowed to simply be wrong without a grandiose agenda), mention them in the article with relevant (referenced) criticism; if you can't find criticism, then include them anyway! Also, don't refer to the studies as "Lancet" and "Harvard", that is authoritative wording used by anti-abortion breast cancer reporters (which makes up the majority, something you should also substantiate/analyze in the article, but you don't bother). Instead you should call these studies, "Melbye" and "Michels" studies, to clarify shortsighted people can be in charge scientific studies, not just online encyclopedias. If you just reference marginalized science and scientists, then your article will be of marginal quality, importance and persuasiveness. But hey, whatever, it's conservapedia that ends up looking bad. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 19:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT) 

:::You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::That does not answer why studies indicating no link are not included. The answer seems obvious, they aren't included because people write about what they want to hear. There are very large studies indicating no link -- which form the current scientific consensus by the way -- and so should be included. Murray is assuming they are "methodologically sound," I do not take the NCI's nor the media's interpretation of the evidence at face value; but how people here think it is okay to excluded from the article is beyond me.

::::Also, there is no mention of criticism of studies which indicate an ABC link, such as response bias and small data sets. There is plenty of criticism of these studies but has not been mentioned here. The section also repeatedly makes use of the word "expert", yet cites no expert who concludes there is marginal or no ABC link; I'm sure they exist. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== Historical view of abortion ==

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

: Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

: I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.

: Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

: Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT

==Portugal==
Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.
--[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT

== Blocked? ==

So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally, Conservapedia is not a ''free'' encyclopedia, but a ''trustworthy'' encyclopedia. If vandalism or edit clashes break out then pages should be blocked. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: What do the above comments have to do with whether something is "free"? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== death rate ==

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is
:''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''
Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::*<nowiki>:</nowiki>D There's your smile! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed the same thing that [[User:Myk|Myk]] mentioned above but no one seems to have addressed it. If the sentence is going to make the billion-dollar-industry claim, then shouldn't the sources, you know, back that statement up somehow instead of being remotely and tangentially related?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.

: If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Listen up==

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. ''At this point'' there is '''no''' credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

:Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Confused ==

Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== But what about the benefits of abortion? ==

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:
*Saving the mother's life
*Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
*Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer
I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: http://bcpinstitute.org/printabc_html.htm '''However, are there more sources? '''

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).

::I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
::The point isn't that '''Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad!''' but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.

: Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.

: A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the ''Economist'' published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/research_detail.asp?item=94. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.

: History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???

: Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:
#Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose [[elective abortion]] rather than bring their baby into the world
#There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.

Related news article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

Study abstract:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814

Full text of study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

== Quick question ==

What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks :D --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::That says "thou shalt not kill". I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The "thou shalt not kill" rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, it says "You are not to murder". For many of us, that includes life in the womb. I am probably a bit more liberal than some, in that I do feel it is ok to debate the issue, but if you believe, as i do, that an unborn child is human, then "No murder" applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says "thou shalt not kill". I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says "thou shalt not kill" as well. Which version are you using? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between "dont kill" and "dont murder", including such issues as the death penalty, etc. Some will argue (perhaps correctly) that nearly-cannonical translations such as KJV can be taken as is since they are so widely accepted. I could go on forever, but I wont. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

===Round 2===
I never seem to have gotten a clear answer above, so I'll try again: Where does the Bible say that life ''begins at conception''? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that life begins at conception is not a universally shared one and actually a certain paradox exists because of that reason. The idea is that "potential life" is created at conception. Many people, apparently, believe that life begins at conception as a cell is formed, however whether this is actually life depends on your definition of "life". I assume that from a religious perspective one would assume that this is the moment where the soul enters the body and the soul is then released when it is killed and thus the moment it is actually immoral to cause the destruction of that life. To my understanding people of the Jewish faith believe that life begins with one's first breath. This being said I know of no reason why that definition has changed with Christianity, and I am not aware of any Bible verse that discusses when a soul enters a body. So, unless I'm wrong no biblical scriture mentions anything about abortion. It does bring up an interesting point in the process. The first ammendment of the American Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, thus providing a legal definition of when "life" occurs and making abortion prior to that point would be restricting the religious freedoms of others because it is creating morality where morality is unclear and different according to different religions and beliefs. --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

I see a logical problem with what appears to be a an attempt to link abortion to a number of health problems. Opposition to abortion is not based on the notion of risks to the mother, it is based on the risk to the fetus. There is a 100% chance of fetal death. If studies showed conclusively that say: Abortion had no effect on cancer risk and Early term abortion was safer for the mother than full term delivery (Which it is), pretty much all the people who oppose abortion now would still oppose abortion, because of the fetal death issue.

--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: The logical flaw is yours. The link between abortion and breast cancer should be disclosed to the mother regardless of one's views on abortion. It is the abortion industry and its allies and recipients of federal funding who have a motivation to cover up this link, which cannot seriously be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Any doctor should disclose all known risks and benefits for any procedure, and my comment did not seek to dispute the existence of a link. I am not a doctor/cancer researcher and would not pretend to know about that. But the problem is that if it could be shown that an abortion presented lower overall risk, making the choice to abort based on that would still be the height of selfishness and would in my view be immoral. What I am saying is that if you frame an argument against abortion around the relative risks/benefits to the mother you are positioning the debate in some dangerous and territory. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because they feel that they are too poor, too busy or otherwise unable to care for the child and maintain their current standard of living. From a certain point of view they may be correct. That still makes the choice a very selfish and immoral one, and as such thinking about the issue from a risk reward point of view if flawed, some people will always come out on the side of abortion. Essentially the way to frame this is: the doctor has two patients, the mother and the fetus. The principal of "first do no harm" implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Consider to include in "See also" section==

I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the "see also" section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion in minnesota ==

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf 14,065 abortions in Minnesota in 2006 according to Minnesota Department of Health. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Health risks ==

The section headed ''health risks'' should start out with the fact that abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child (except when the child survives, which is even more gruesome). [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

I think a new section would be justified talking about the use of forced abortion as a population control tool. I personally know somebody who took part in round-ups of women for forced abortion and have personally seen family planning officials stationed outside a block of flats in order to coerce a women hiding in one of the flats to go and have an abortion. Here's my suggestion. Perhaps others could add some improvements

== Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==

Abortion is not only legal up to full term in the [[Peoples Republic of China]] but is frequently used both as a method of [[birth control]] and an instrument of enforcement of that country's [[one-child policy]], despite official protestations to the contrary.

From the introduction of the [[family planning]] policy in the 1970's until the early 21st century, coerced or forced abortion was used as an instrument of enforcement against women who violated the one child rule. Local officials are held responsible for meeting birth targets in their areas and are usually the ones invovled in such action. In rural areas, teams would be sent out to villages to round up pregnant women without birth permits and take them to a hospital where they would be forced to have abortions. In urban areas, if a pregnant woman was discovered in hiding without a birth permit, the local family planning office would have people stationed by the entrance to the block until the woman either agreed to abort the baby or was forcibly taken.

Despite the use of forced abortion being outlawed by the central government, the practice has persisted in some areas, most notably, [[Linyi]], [[Shandong]] Province, where it was exposed to [[''Time'']] magazine by blind [[activist]] [[Chen Guangcheng]] in 2005. As a result of his expose of Linyi officials, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months prison for "intentionally damaging property" and "organising a crowd to disturb traffic" after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.
[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocrisy==
How can conservapedia devote an entire article to bias in wikipedia, and then vomit out a bias-ridden article like this mess? It's the same with other articles on atheism, homosexuality, Islam and other anti-Conservative topics. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral - this isn't neutral it is republican party propaganda. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 16:12, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: No, this isn't republican party propaganda; the GOP isn't this extremist! Seriously, this is more of an essay or blog than an encyclopedia article. [[User:Gootbean|Gootbean]] 16:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:: One comment above uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "hypocrisy"; the other uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "extremist"! Check out [[liberal style]] and see yourselves in the mirror.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I kind of wonder about their use of the word "extremists" on us. We're not the ones killing children here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::: Right. Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream! Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of [[liberals]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::::I do have to say that this article has issues. It is currently a piece of propaganda, not a good encyclopedia article. This all should be mentioned, sure (the idea of Conservapedia is to avoid the censorship so common to such causes), but if we want to create an encyclopdia people can come to an read (not read a political treatise), we should fix this up. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I find it odd that you just have come to Conservapedia, and seconds later you begin lecturing sysops about the ideals of Conservapedia. I would tread lightly, because your motivations seem questionable at best. If you are here to edit fine, but if you are here, as I suspect, to stir up trouble, then please feel free to leave. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 19:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)

==Picture==
Is the picture of the unborn fetus really an integral part of this article? Because I can see it being used as ammo by PETA loons bent on trying to stick cute pictures of cows into the [[hamburger]] and [[beef]] articles. "Give a man an inch..." -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 14:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)

: That's your sole contribution to this encyclopedia. How about doing yourself a favor, and [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|opening your mind]] a bit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::I made a suggestion about how to close a potential loophole, which people here are free to either take up or pass over, but I would appreciate it if others would consider things on merit, and not resort to roundabout, ad hominem jabs. -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 18:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]] ==

Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]]; I cannot do it because [[Abortion]] is locked. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:Also, let's just unlock this article. What fun is it if I cannot edit [[abortion]], [[evolution]], and [[gun control]]? StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::Are you serious? Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::Which says a lot about public opinion regarding Conservapedia - they're not stupid enough to take this page seriously. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 14:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Do you equate the acts of a few vandals with public opinion..? --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::::"'''Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.'''" Think about the contributions conservapedia looses with these draconian measures (such as mine due to night time restrictions). StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: Stephen: "loses" is with only one "o". Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Stephen it's not as though a bunch of sysops just decided one day, "Eh, it would be really awesome if we just pissed people off by not letting them edit certain articles or at certain times!" Certain articles get lots of vandalism - which is why they are locked - all wikis do this. I'm not even going to respond to your reference to night editing as this page is not the place to vent your general frustration)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Hippocrates' Oath==

I suggest a reference to the oath in the second sentence of the article; not because it's at all contested, but simply in order to demonstrate clearly how it is "expressly prohibited". I would suggest the following:

<nowiki><ref>"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."</ref></nowiki>

I would add it myself instead of pestering here, but... the article is unfortunately still locked... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Florida Marlins

2008-01-19T19:20:01Z

Acronym:

[[Image:Floridamarlins logo.gif|right]]
The '''Florida Marlins''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team located in [[Miami]], [[Florida]]. They play in the [[National League]] East Division.

There has been considerable talk of the team moving or building a new stadium in the coming years. The team won the [[World Series]] in 1997 and 2003. Dolphin Stadium, home of the Marlins, has hosted two World Series champions.

'''National League Pennants:''' 2 (1997, 2003)

'''World Pennants:''' 2 (1997, 2003)

== Team ==
=== Offensive ===
'''Catcher'''
*[[Miguel Olivo ]]

'''1st Base'''
*[[Aaron Boone]]

'''2d Base'''
*[[Dan Uggla]]

'''Shortstop'''
*[[Hanley Ramirez]]

'''3d Base'''
*[[Miguel Cabrera]]

'''Left Field'''
*[[Josh Willingham]]

'''Center Field'''
*[[Alfredo Amezaga]]

'''Right Field'''
*[[Jeremy Hermida]]

'''Backup Outfielder'''
*[[Reggie Abercrombie]]

=== Pitching Staff ===

'''Starting Pitchers'''
*[[Dontrelle Willis ]]
*[[Scott Olsen]]
*[[Sergio Mitre]]
*[[Byung-Hyun Kim]]
*[[Wes Obermueller]]

'''Relievers'''
*[[Taylor Tankersley]]
*[[Renyel Pinto]]
*[[Randy Messenger]]
*[[Matt Lindstrom]]
*[[Lee Gardner]]
*[[Justin Miller]]

'''Closer'''
*[[Kevin Gregg]]

== Related Links ==
*[http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=fla Official Team Website]
*[http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/team/depth_chart/index.jsp?c_id=fla Team Depth Chart]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_national}}

Cable News Network

2008-01-19T19:02:21Z

Acronym: /* Allegations of Bias */

[[Image:LOGOCNN.png|right|thumb]]
The '''Cable News Network''' (CNN) is the oldest 24 hour cable [[news]] channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[Ted Turner]], it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by AOL Time Warner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]], [[Turkish]] and [[Gaelic]].

== Allegations of Bias ==

It has been accused by media critics of having both liberal and conservative slants to its reporting.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13</ref>

== News Anchors ==
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Glenn Beck]]
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Paula Zahn]]
*[[Campbell Brown]]
*[[Lou Dobbs]]

== References ==
<References/>
==External Links==
:[http://www.cnn.com/ CNN official site]
[[category:broadcasting]]
[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[CAtegory: Articles needing expansion]]

Global warming

2008-01-19T18:46:06Z

Acronym: /* The Modern Warm Period */

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]

'''Global Warming''' is any increase in average air temperature at the [[Earth]]'s surface over a period of decades or more. Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming; see "[[greenhouse warming]]" and [[global warming theory]].<ref>Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]</ref>

As an issue, it is a political battle over the science of climate change and is mainly used to justify support for the [[Kyoto Protocol]], which seeks to restrict [[carbon dioxide]] production on the grounds that it accelerates the "[[greenhouse effect]]".

Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:

*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific. <ref>http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf</ref>

Politician [[Al Gore]] calls it a [[moral issue]], while scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, "It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it." <ref>http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On%20line%20extra%20materials/Climate%20change%20-%20lindzen%20interview.doc</ref>
However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.{{Fact}}

In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.

The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.

Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:
* 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe [[anthropogenic global warming theory|the warming is due to humans]], while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] </ref>

As we learn more about climate, the "settled" conclusions of global warming [[alarmist]]s, appear more and more ridiculous.
"Clinging to alarmist scenarios for which there is no evidence, is simply exploitation of public gullibility." <ref>http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:A0llnpZ71lMJ:www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us</ref>

==The Modern Warm Period==
[[Image:Artic 1979.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|A computer projection comparing the Polar Ice Mass in 1979 (left) and 2000 (right).]]
Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> How much of this is due to contamination of the temperature record from the [[urban heat island]] effect is hard to assess. Efforts are currently underway to detect and remove this bias. Spurious warming trends that might be considered as global warming can occur almost anywhere. <ref>http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-have-larger-long-term-temperature-trends-than-other-locations/feed/</ref>
Nonetheless, controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. <ref>http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-have-larger-long-term-temperature-trends-than-other-locations/feed/</ref>

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

A [[United Nations]] panel ([[IPCC]]) asserts that most of the warming since around 1850 is human-caused. Global warming alarmists call this panel "authoritative". Others question its objectivity, and a handful of scientists have resigned from the panel in protest over unauthorized changes in scientific reports.

In February, 2007, the [[IPCC|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], whose members were appointed by their governments, released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that most of recent global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>. It says that increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es cause warming. Several members of this panel later complained their contributions were misrepresented in the final report.

===IPCC controversy===
A reporter for the ''Chicago Tribune'' called the IPCC "the top body of climate change scientists in the world". <ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref>

Fred Singer and other scientists dispute this view. 


==False Claims of "Consensus"==

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, liberal activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989, shortly after the communist nations lost the Cold War.


==The Hockey Stick Temperature Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The flawed Hockey Stick graph in a 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade".]]
One of the main pieces of evidence for anthropogenic global warming presented during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist [[Michael Mann]]. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades.

While dramatic, the graph encountered serious questions from the beginning. It failed to reproduce two Northern Hemisphere climate episodes that were well documented in the literature, the Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age (it should be noted that these were not global phenomenons, but were limited to Europe and Greenland; the Mann diagram concerned global average temperatures). Concerned about these discrepancies, [[Stephen McIntyre]] and [[Canada|Canadian]] economist Ross McKitrick attempted to reproduce the result and discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 11° F and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1° F just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand, [[Uranus]] has been found to be undergoing rapid cooling, for reasons not entirely understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

==Politics of Global Warming==

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.9 °F over the second half of the 20th Century.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

*In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

==Al Gore's Assault on Science==

*Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>


*Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>

*Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes. <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Global Warming Controversy]]
*[[Politics of global warming]]
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from "More News"]]

==External Links==

*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann

==Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.


==References==
{{reflist|1}}

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]

File talk:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif

2008-01-19T18:42:52Z

Acronym:

I would just like to point out that graphs do not prove or disprove anything. They are representations of data that a source compiles for easy viewing. Much of this data can be incorrect, biased, or misused. A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. 13:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)

File talk:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif

2008-01-19T18:42:21Z

Acronym: New page: I would just like to point out that graphs do not prove or disprove anything. They are representation of data that a source compiles for easy viewing. Much of this data can be incorrect, b...

I would just like to point out that graphs do not prove or disprove anything. They are representation of data that a source compiles for easy viewing. Much of this data can be incorrect, biased, or misused. A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. 13:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Homosexual act

2008-01-19T18:33:35Z

Acronym:

The term '''homosexual act''' can be applied to any romantic or erotic interaction between persons of the same sex.

Attitudes towards such acts vary, subjectively, from culture to culture, and from individual to individual. Some sources claim that references to, and records of, sexual relations between persons of the same sex exist for almost every human civilization throughout history. This point may be used to illustrate the acceptability of homosexuality.

Such acts are forbidden by religious texts such as the [[Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]] and strict followers of these writings often cite them in objection to sexual interaction between gays; Stating that, a subjective cultural ''imprimatur'' of acceptability does not save the objective immorality of the act.

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Homosexual act

2008-01-19T18:30:58Z

Acronym:

The term '''homosexual act''' can be applied to any romantic or erotic interaction between persons of the same sex.

Attitudes towards such acts vary, subjectively, from culture to culture, and from individual to individual. Some sources claim that references to, and records of, sexual relations between persons of the same sex exist for almost every human civilization throughout history somehow make the act acceptable.

Such acts are forbidden by religious texts such as the [[Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]] and strict followers of these writings often cite them in objection to sexual interaction between gays; Stating that, a subjective cultural ''imprimatur'' of acceptability does not save the objective immorality of the act.

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Rage Against The Machine

2008-01-19T01:02:01Z

Acronym:

'''Rage Against The Machine''' is an American alternative rock that band formed in California in 1991. They are well known for their political lyrics, protests, and vocal opposition to censorship. The group is made up of four members; Tom Morello, Zach de la Rocha, Tim Commerford and Brad Wilk.

==Discography==
Rage Against The Machine's studio albums are:

*Rage Against The Machine (1992)
*Evil Empire (1996)
*The Battle of Los Angeles (1999)
*Renegades (2000)

[[Category:Bands]]