Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fidel Castro

2013-03-07T14:26:44Z

CamilleT: /* Occam's razor */

__TOC__
I’ve heard Castro called many things, but terrorist is not one of them, can someone explain why he is listed as a terrorist? Also could the information justifying that categorization be added to his page?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:''4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.'' (See [[Differences_with_Wikipedia]])
:see [[Terrorism]] for a description of a terroist. Castro certainly was one.
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 14:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist. If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so. The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear. The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Castro couldn't have been convicted of being a terrorist because he terrorized the legal authority that could have convicted him out of existence.
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 15:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That does seem to be a problem with the editorial policy (though I would say he used violence rather than terror to end the previous Cuban government), but I don’t make the policy (I’ve even argued against it). I’m just telling you what I gather the policy is. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By that definition Batista was a terrorist with his coup in 1934, just as Castro is, or George Washington for that matter...

It's all about the word "unlawful", which generally doesn't have the same meaning in different times and countries.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== DIctator/President ==

Interesting to note that Castro "has been the dictator of Cuba since 1959 and ''has called himself'' the President of Cuba since 1976," whereas [[Pervez Musharraf]] "''became'' President of Pakistan, ''via a coup''" (emphasis mine). What in essence is the difference? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:46, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:For a dictator, he certainly relinquished power without much of a struggle. [[User:Rugxulo|Rugxulo]] 18:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Castro Dead?==
Can we see some hard evidence suggesting this? Just because he is keeping to himself dosn't mean he has died. He is still the Secretary of the communist party--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 12:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:Maybe Fidel Castro is alive and even editing this site!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::Speculation is not necessary here as Castro is no longer running the show. His brother Raul Castro was innagurated as acting President in July 2006. Until such evidence is shown speculation of his death is ultimately baseless. Please do not add any. This is not a gossip site after all. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:02, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:::Matthew, you're clueless here. When someone is missing for 3.5 years and there is an incentive to lie about his fate, then he's presumptively dead. Communists don't define the truth. God does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::In October Castro allegedly met with the leader of Cyprus and a Chinese official. [http://nba.msg.com/photo/0a1W9IQclz2DV Here] is a supposed photo of Castro with Wu Bangguo. It's released by the Cuban state media, but apparently the (obviously liberal) AP found it sufficiently convincing as to endorse it.
::::Obviously it's possible that the leader of Cyprus (and at least three other leaders who have allegedly met him since July) was paid off to lie about this and the photo is of a lookalike (or older). But true or false, matters are perhaps not quite so simple as Fidel simply disappearing for the last few years, and we should carefully consider the evidence. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:13, 29 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Fidel, like many dictators, had body and face doubles, like the one we famously killed of Saddam in the opening salvo of the Iraq invasion. It seems far more likely to me that they just passed a double off as Castro than that they bribed a foreign head of state. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::::[[Liberal denial]] illustrates its [[double standard]]. Natalie Holloway has been missing for a period comparable to Fidel Castro's absence, and no one would deny the likelihood that she is dead. It doesn't matter what the authorities might say. But no [[liberal]] will admit that Castro is likely dead also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Well, the difference there is that Natalie Holloway disappeared, whereas Castro hasn't been seen in public for years. By that logic Macaulay Culkin is also dead. But seriously, Castro certainly could be dead, but that doesn't mean he is. If I had to guess, I'd say he's not. I think if he had died they would have staged an enormous funeral for him with all sorts of parades, teeming with propaganda. Dictators love that stuff. But that's just my opinion. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 12:08, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I just noticed that this made "[[Liberal Denial]]." DanL seems to make a good point Andy. I guess what I don't see is:
*a) What motivation the Cubans would have to lie about Castro being dead and
*b) What motivation liberals would have to insist that Castro is alive if he really were dead. It seems like a really obscure point at best. Personally, I'm assuming that Castro is alive for the same reason everyone else does: dictators don't just pass away unnoticed. Or is there a historical precedent I'm missing? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 12:25, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I'm confused about whether you're saying you know he's dead or that you presume he's dead based on not being sighted in public. I just checked the news and there are quite a few references to him making statements recently. Are you saying someone is lying? If so, to what end? And the Holloway story is different in that she disappeared. You just haven't seen Castro lately. Others appear to have because they recorded his statements. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 12:38, 30 December 2009 (EST)

'''Motivation''' would primarily to conceal the power struggle while the fascists decide who's going to be the new dictator. Communists lie about everything else - particularly [[mass murder]] (see also [[genocide]]). The kind of political power that "comes out of the barrel of a gun" rather than the curtains of a voting booth is well disposed to deception. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:22, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:DanL and JDW seem to think that if a brutal communist regime claims someone is alive, then we should take that at face value even though he hasn't been seen publicly in 3.5 years. But they don't answer the question of why they believe communists when, for example, they probably wouldn't believe a similar claim that another missing person (such as Natalie Holloway) is still alive. As each day goes by without a public appearance by Fidel Castro or credible independent verification (e.g., a meeting with Republican congressmen), the chance Fidel Castro is still alive decreases. How much longer do DanL and JDW require before admitting that the chance has dropped to less than 50%? After 3.5 more years? 10 more years?

:Communists lie about everything. There's little reason to believe that the Russian dictator Yuri Andropov died when the communists said he did, given the long period when no one could confirm he was still alive either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::It's not just Cubans who say he's alive. Castro himself wrote several articles in the last few months and the president of Argentina met with him in Cuba. Do you think he's dead because you believe communists are in general liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 15:36, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::Well if you have doubts, feel free to fly down to Havana and see him for yourself. And while you're there, see about getting the right to criticize Castro's government...or the right to free speech in general, or the right to assemble freely with like-minded persons, or the right to attend the church of your choice, or the right to possess a gun just in case the government gets a tad-tyrannical. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:55, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict) Wow, Hector, that seals the case ... Castro supposedly wrote some articles! Of course that proves nothing.

:::Castro was a communist dictator. He reveled in worship of him by the public. After he's been missing for a period of time from self-serving public events, a period that started with a life-threatening medical condition and complex surgery, the chance that he is still alive decreases with each passing day. The [[liberal denial]] of this is remarkable.

:::Perhaps the closure by liberals will come when the New York Times finally runs a front page article asking these questions. Then, as soon as the communists can arrange it without being too obvious, they will announce that Castro just passed away.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:00, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::I don't really care either way since I don't have a horse in this race. If you'll notice, I'm just asking you questions, not taking a position one way or the other, so I'm not in liberal denial, whatever that is. I'm just concerned that you're not addressing that the president of Argentina met with him earlier this year. Hugo Chavez met with him more recently. Are these men liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:03, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Well, I guess your statement "I don't really care either way" constitutes the bonafide end of your argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:07, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::::I'm sorry I came off as flippant there. I don't care whether he's alive or dead, to be honest, but I do care that the article reflect the truth instead of speculation. Thanks for pointing out my error. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::What you need to do is to read the Bible as you said you try to do on your user page, specifically Revelation 3:14-18; it tells of what Jesus will do to a church that "doesn't really care one way or the other":
::::::::''And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.''
:::::::[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:19, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::Of course I don't take anything Communist regimes say at face value. They do indeed lie more than they tell the truth. Still I don't see the motivation in this case, as Castro is no longer even the leader, thus the power struggles Ed mentioned wouldn't be in play. Furthermore, I stand by my point. Dictators don't die unnoticed and unanounced: Stalin died and a massive funeral was organized overnight. Mao died and the same happened. Kim Il Sung, Hitler, you name it, no one kept their deaths a secret, because there was no reason to put off a big dramatic funeral and public outpouring of love for the Dear Leader. Can you name a single instance where a dictator died and his death was covered up?

::Not to mention, no one's touched my second question. What motivation would liberals have to ''deny'' that a dictator has died? To put it nicely, this whole issue sounds like shadow-boxing to me. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:40, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::I do not know about Fidel Castro, however in history there were cases in which a leader died and a weaker leader took over, pretending to serve the interests of the previous leader. If Raul Castro is unpopular, maybe he pretends his brother is alive to use his power? I am not saying that this happened, but it is not without precedent.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 16:59, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, apparently he's alive. He's made a public reappearance a couple of days ago. He looks quite ill, though. --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 14:02, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::And he was wearing a Nike jacket. Where is his hate to "American Imperialism"? This is liberal hypocrisy at its worst. I bet most cubans are not even allowed to buy one of those jackets.--[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 14:56, 12 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::CBS News reporting on Castro death rumors: ''[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1859015.html State Secret: Is Castro Dead?]'', Brian Goodman, September 22, 2009. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Since the last contribution to this discussion was two years ago, I just thought I'd chime in. Unless there was a revolution in plastic surgery I'm unaware of, this is Fidel Castro, speaking about Obama and the Republican nomination. He speaks about recent events in Syria and Lybia, mentions the POTUS as being almost powerless (so obviously he means Obama), and the last time there was a Republican nomination without a Dem nomination at the same time was in 1996, so this video could hardly be that old. Is this enough for us to at least consider the possibility of him being alive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPcXhLojPo8
[[User:Fbelard|Fbelard]] 14:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Here's a recent picture of himself, his brother, and Hugo Chavez: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/13/fidel-castro-hugo-chavez-colombia-farc-talks]. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:14, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

And here`s a picture of February the 3rd 2013 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/04/fidel-castro-says-hugo-chavez-condition-improving-in-battle-against-pelvic/ --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 13:31, 5 February 2013 (EST)

:The man photographed is too young to be Castro - look at his skin, the tell-tale sign of age. He's also too short to be Castro, assuming average height for those around him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 5 February 2013 (EST)
::Watch this [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57567465/fidel-castro-hits-polls-in-rare-public-appearance/ video]. You can clearly see that the man in the video is elderly, frail, and stooped with age. You can also see that the man is quite obviously Fidel Castro. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 14:05, 5 February 2013 (EST)

:::Your comment is non-responsive to my specific points: the stand-in's skin is too young (and dissimilar to Castro), his height is too short, and it is generally implausible that an extremely sick, elderly man who likely had a terminal disease in 2006, is inexplicably fit and active more than six years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 5 February 2013 (EST)
::::Try watching the video I linked to. The man isn't short, he's become severely stooped with age. His skin is on par with individuals of his age, and if you had watched the video, you wouldn't be describing him as "fit and active". --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:12, 5 February 2013 (EST)

== Category liberalism ==

Really? He's a communist. I think most people, including himself, would say that he's not a liberal. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:45, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

== He's alive ==

Multiple reference testify to Castro's continued life. Please supply references proving otherwise before reverting again. I refer you to your own Conservapedia Commandments. Obey them or admit they are no longer relevant to this project. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:18, 24 February 2013 (EST)

== Occam's razor ==

By this point, we should all admit to ourselves that Fidel Castro is alive. Old and haggard, certainly. But not dead. He has appeared in public multiple times. His appearances have become rare, but this is understandable given his age. And besides, Cuba may be a dump, but Castro is still a powerful man. He can avail himself to state-of-art healthcare if he wishes it. His alleged condition, diverticulitis, is hardly a death sentence, and can be cured by antibiotics. The root disease, diverticulosis, can be managed by a simple change in diet. It seems that if Castro did indeed have diverticulitis, he suffered complications and had to have surgery. it's possible that complications in the surgery may have lead to bacteria escaping the colon and killing him, but this brings us down to two competing hypotheses. 
Castro is dead 
Castro is alive 
Given that he has appeared in public, the likelier explanation is that he is alive. 
Castro will eventually die, sooner rather than later. But until then, Conservapedia embarrasses itself by claiming he is dead.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:31, 24 February 2013 (EST)
:So, no comment? I'll fix up the article in a few days if nobody objects--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 10:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::You will be reverted and possibly blocked. You should know better after all the discussion on this site that shows you without any doubt at all that the owner of the site wants it this way. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 17:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:::So why was the "Fidel" who supposedly met the [[Pope]] wearing a heavy scarf on a hot day, and stood much shorter than the real Fidel? See [[Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::::Well, I can't say the presence of a scarf is particularly convincing. Alone, it certainly isn't. It does remind me of my late great-grandfather, however. Despite his doctor's urging, he would continue to wear wool pants every day, be it summer, spring, fall, or winter. That's something I've noticed about the elderly. As a CNA, I've found that our seniors are very sensitive to the cold.
::::Then there's also the question of what the scarf would be hiding. Looking at the photographs of Castro meeting with the pontiff, I see that his neck is covered. On the Mystery page, it is said that this is because it is difficult to replicate older age with a neck. Then why didn't they just procure an older actor? Surely this wouldn't be beyond the Cuban government's means.
:::: Similarly,if they were to rely on prosthetics to emulate a deceased Castro, why couldn't they have picked a taller actor?
::::Again, we are faced with two possibilities. Either Castro is alive, or he is dead. There is no evidence that he is dead, and barring a conspiracy involving the world's media, actors, and makeup, there is evidence that Fidel Castro yet lives. According to Occam's razor, the hypothesis making the least assumptions is the preferable one. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 09:26, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:Well there is one news source[http://www.theonion.com/articles/humiliated-team-of-cuban-doctors-forced-to-continu,31448/] that claims Castro is dead :). -[[User:EdgarP|EdgarP]] 20:40, 26 February 2013 (EST)

Talk:Fidel Castro

2013-02-26T15:36:12Z

CamilleT: /* Occam's razor */

Talk:Fidel Castro

2013-02-25T02:31:02Z

CamilleT: /* Occam's razor */ new section

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-01-16T05:41:15Z

CamilleT: /* Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous */

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opportunities for improvement ==

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

# '''Ambiguousness of predictions''' - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
# '''Links to predictions''' - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
# '''"Liberal claptrap" responses''' - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
# '''The results''' - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

:You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the [[Overrated Sports Stars]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors ([[User:Wonders]] and [[User:AugustO]]) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

*the article on [[Lance Armstrong]] was created in '''Sep 2007'''. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in '''Jan 2012'''
*In '''Sep 2007''' wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&oldid=156195303#Allegations_of_drug_use article on Armstrong] already had a long section named '''Allegations of drug use'''
So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September.'' Evidence?
:::::''There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.'' Link?
:::::There are those thinks called ''facts''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::Just citations which show that [[Anheuser Bush]] and [[Nike]] are liberal companies... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And [[Anheuser Bush]] doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.
:::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Talk:Atheism and cowardice

2012-06-18T00:28:31Z

CamilleT: /* Regarding your Niagara Falls news item */ new section

== This doesn't seem to be right ==

So a few prominent atheists refused to debate...does that mean you can label every single person who is atheist a coward? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 12:15, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
::: A few prominent atheists? See [[Atheism and cowardice]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:21, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
::::...That's the article I'm commenting on. It can safely be assumed that I have read the article I'm commenting on. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 10:12, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pat Tillman was an atheist. Is he a coward? --[[User:Hetgar|Hetgar]] 20:56, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
::: When an atheist says they're willing to debate their ideas with prominent theists, such as Richard Dawkins, and then he refuses to for all sorts of excuses, that's cowardace. --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 18:09, 7 November 2011 (EST)

::::Well yeah, but the point is I know religious people who are cowards. That doesn't mean I immediately assume that it's obviously a result of the religious beliefs and that all other religious people must be cowards... Just because Dawkins didn't want to debate, doesn't mean it warrants an article about the correlation between Atheism and cowardice. If you want to make an article out of it, call it Dawkins and Cowardice or make a Dawkins page and mention it there. --[[User:Glenwing|Glenwing]] 1:21, 7 May 2012 (MST)

== Regarding your Niagara Falls news item ==

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0H0r2Xqlgs Here's a video of James Randi escaping out of a straitjacket hanging over the falls]--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:28, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why Did Santorum Quit?

2012-04-15T18:06:49Z

CamilleT: /* His daughter was sick */ new section

== "How soon will Santorum begin campaigning against pro-life Newt Gingrich?" ==

Do you really think anybody is taking Gingrich (and his 136 delegates) as seriously as [[Gingrich Administration|a viable candidate for the Republican nomination]] at this point? If Santorum really has the best interests of the party (and Romney) at heart, he should be campaigning against the president, not some irrelevant has-been who is staying in the race solely for reasons of self-promotion (...which speaks to your "mystery" about why Santorum decided to stop spending other people's money on a lost cause. There is a lot wrong with the guy, but he's nowhere near as in love with himself or as slimy as Gingrich) . [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 10:00, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm curious: which Democrats would you refer to as "slimy" or "in love with himself"? Gingrich is no worse than many liberals in that regard.

:But back to the main point. If you're right about Gingrich and Santorum, then is your prediction that Santorum won't campaign against Gingrich? I predict that Santorum will, beginning as early as this month.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:35, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
::Just about all politicians are slimy and in love with themselves. It goes with the territory. There is no need to campaign against Gingrich. He's performed very poorly so far, and will not secure anywhere near enough delegates in the short term to make him a threat in the long term. Romney is the presumptive nominee, and barring some unforeseen disaster (he gets sick, some incredibly horrific thing from his past comes to light, etc) all of the party's focus is on Obama from here on out. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 10:43, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:::But, again, if you were right that "[t]here is no need to campaign against Gingrich," then Santorum won't do it. But I predict he does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::If he does, Santorum is even dumber than I thought he might be, and the Republican Party is even more out-of-touch with reality than I had figured. Wasting any sort of resources on a guy who has barely more than a fifth of the delegates as does the leader at the half-way point of the race and who doesn't have any reporters travelling with his campaign would be beyond stupid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 11:14, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Santorum will not "campaign against Gingrich" ==

Two days ago, at the NRA convention, with what may be his last guaranteed national audience for the foreseeable future, Santorum [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/13/santorum-hails-nra-fight-for-individual-freedom/ focused his remarks on Obama], not on Gingrich. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 13:36, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

== His daughter was sick ==

She has a life threatening condition. I think that is a pretty good reason to quit, maybe not of itself, but combined with Romney's victories at the time, that may have been the impetus.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:06, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Healthcare reform

2012-03-30T18:37:54Z

CamilleT: Created page with "Perhaps an article on the concept of healthcare reform is warranted? It would cover tort reform, mandates, public option, deregulation (for medical research and for pharmaceutic..."

Perhaps an article on the concept of healthcare reform is warranted? It would cover tort reform, mandates, public option, deregulation (for medical research and for pharmaceutical production: as an example, certain medications are controlled in production by the government, despite demand), and medicare reform. I don't think I'll be able to do it myself anytime soon, but I would still like to suggest it.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

War on Women

2012-03-14T22:30:16Z

CamilleT: I seem to recall polls revealing support for mandating contraception coverage for religious organizations

'''"War on Women"''' is a campaign narrative crafted and promoted by the [[Democratic Party]] for the 2012 election cycle.

This angle is the first reaction by any [[Planned Parenthood]] spokeswoman when confronted by scaling back public tax dollars. <ref>[http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/16/6068123-a-war-on-women-planned-parenthoods-cecile-richards-on-gops-assault-on-reproductive-rights 'A War on Women' - Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards on GOP's Assault on Reproductive Rights, Newsvine, Feb 16, 2011]</ref> Recently, [[contraception]] was made an issue by liberals during the televised presidential debates. Liberal debate hosts would pepper the candidates with meaningless contraception questions when there wasn't any public outcry. <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/node/38885 ABC's Stephanopoulos Defends Contraception Line of Questioning from Debate, MRC, January 12, 2012]</ref> Soon thereafter, [[Obamacare]] mandates that [[Catholic]] organizations provide contraception and the issue became national, with most of the public in opposition.{{fact}} The bottom line is that Democrats are pushing a narrative, that is -- they claim to fight for women against the "anti-women" GOP.

Next came contraception discussions on [[Capitol Hill]]. House Democrats were livid over the GOP scheduling only men on a panel describing the issue of contraception. <ref>[http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-ft-myers/the-war-on-women-and-contraception The war on women and contraception, The Examiner, February 18, 2012]</ref> Many sympathetic liberals in the [[Lamestream media]] picked up the story. They did not include the fact that this was a morning hearing and that the afternoon hearing scheduled women for the panel. The Democrat narrative was framed, hearings by an uncaring GOP.

The latest issue involves yet another Democrat prop. Democrats have been pushing to have testimony from Sandra Fluke on contraception issues. Denied several days by Republicans to speak, Democrats managed to have her give public testimony. Fluke claimed it is expensive for contraception and wants her university to pay. [[Rush Limbaugh]] weighed in surmising that the Democrat prop, [[Sandra Fluke]], wants taxpayers to pay for her to have [[sex]], aka a slut. Liberals everywhere would rally around Fluke and demonized Limbaugh. [[Andrea Mitchell]] of [[MSNBC]] would interview Fluke with the headline "War on Women", <ref>[http://patdollard.com/2012/03/breaking-sandra-fluke-exposed-as-fraud-activist-possible-white-house-operative-with-video/ Breaking: Sandra Fluke Exposed As Fraud, Activist, Possible White House Operative – With Video, PatDollard.com, March 2, 2012]</ref> decrying those mean [[Republican]]s. The DNC demanded that the Republican leadership distance themselves from Limbaugh's remarks and many have. Mr. Limbaugh would go on to issue an apology to Ms. Fluke, stating: "''My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices''".<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0303/What-Rush-Limbaugh-actually-apologized</ref>

When the War on Women catchphrase began, Obama was polling in the high 40s. A few weeks later, the War on Women angle seems to be backfiring as Obama's polling numbers drift into the low 40s. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/13/Obamas%20War%20On%20Women%20Backfires OBAMA'S "WAR ON WOMEN" BACKFIRES, Breitbart.com, March 12, 2012]</ref> <ref>[http://www.catholicleague.org/war-on-women-is-already-over/ “WAR ON WOMEN” IS ALREADY OVER, Catholic League, March 13, 2012]</ref> Still, the Lamestream media is trying to keep the the slander alive in the news cycle. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/03/13/not-even-trying-hide-it-msnbc-graphic-derides-gop-war-women Not Even Trying to Hide it: MSNBC Graphic Derides GOP 'War on Women', Newsbusters,org, March 13, 2012]</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Political card]]
* [[Chicago-style politics]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://conservativedailynews.com/2012/03/war-on-women/ War on Women political cartoon]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Talk:Southern strategy

2012-03-07T01:56:39Z

CamilleT: Created page with "If I'm not mistaken, Democrats would usually take all Southern states until the sixties, where they took a stance against segregation. That's when Republicans started winning th..."

If I'm not mistaken, Democrats would usually take all Southern states until the sixties, where they took a stance against segregation. That's when Republicans started winning them.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:It Gets Better

2012-03-04T21:26:56Z

CamilleT: /* project */

==Merge Request==
I prefer that this page grows on. So, my vote is no merge, uno vs. uno. We need a tie breaker Ed.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:53, 20 January 2012 (EST)

==Lost==
You're really unpleasant about gay people on this website. Why? Denying my sexuality was causing me severe mental distress. It really does get better coming out and acdcepting the fact that you're gay, actually. Sorry, you're wrong.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
:Really? Is that so? I believe the [[Bible]] says otherwise.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:38, 12 December 2011 (EST)
::There is medicine to help with your mental distress. You can have feelings for same-sex but you don't have to act on it. We love the sinner and hate the sin. We rather you hear the truth than to sugar coat it. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:44, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:::It is not important if it please you or you you 'think' it is better the wicked way you choose. The important matter is how God sees it and I assure you: God does not approve !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:46, 12 December 2011 (EST)
::::Yep I'm on good medication, good therapy the works, and I'm now in a good, stable, loving relationship. I'm not particularly religious, but have nothing against those who are. I'm in a much better place than I ever was when I tried to deny my sexuality or convince myself it was 'evil' or something to be 'cured'. And I'm not the only one. You are causing significant suffering and distress - why? I've read the Bible, surely the idea of 'sin' is something that is harmful to humanity - my sexuality is in no way harmful to anyone, quite the opposite. Were I to carry on living a lie, trying to suppress the truth, believing that being gay is wrong or abhorrent, that would be harmful - to myself, my friends and my family, as it was. That's true, from human experience. If you've not experienced it, but only read about it or heard about it, what makes you think you're qualified to judge? Why do you sit in judgment? Leave us alone to be happy, we aren't interfereing with you. I'm not mlitant, I don't hate anyone, and yet everywhere come across poison and hatred based on prejudices and misinformation, such as in Rick Perry's latest campaign ad. Why? I'm not harming anyone. Why should I have to live in denial? I am a moral person, loyal, kind and committed, which is more than can be said for many straight people -including many of those looking to run for President of the United States, on both sides of the political spectrum. God, I am sure, would want me first and foremost to be happy and contented, and cause happiness and contentment to those around me. I am now able to do this, thanks to my coming out. You are promoting a negative, isolating, cold view of love and human relationships. Please, stop. How can you be so certain God does not approve? I am not wicked, I didn't choose to be this way. Sometimes I wish I weren't, but I am what I am. End of.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
:::::You know, if you want to believe your own delusions, go right ahead. But I know and you know God does not approve of that lifestyle. It explicitly states it in the Old ''and'' New Testaments! Sure Jesus makes no specific reference, but He didn't have to. I hope you decide to turn from your wicked sin and find a good doctor. You are in my prayers.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 13 December 2011 (EST)
:::::As for Rick Perry's ads, he makes a good point. Why are they allowed to serve in the military when our children can't celebrate ''Christmas'' or pray in school? It seems the left will tolerate any lifestyle except Christian ones. They hate Christianity, but they will accept Islam, homosexuality, and anything else. You can be homsexual, but you can't pray in school. Does that seem sound to you?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:25, 13 December 2011 (EST)
::::::I've an excellent doctor and have turned from my 'wicked ways' - these being periods of self-harm and aggression caused not by my being gay, but by my repressing it. Now I have come to terms with it and am in a good, stable relationship, with the support of my friends and family, my life is infintitely better. It is sad and distinctly unChristian of you to disparage that and the love and support I have found. I feel very sorry for you that you have such horrible, twisted delusions about gay people and human sexuality. I have nothing to feel ashamed of now, but you clearly do - your hatred and bigotry stem from either a profound bitterness and insecurity, or a cult-like delusional religious Stalinism of skewed biblical literalism and the poison dripped in your ear by false prophets. I pity you. In love.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
::::::::It appears you did not heed my warning about making productive edits to entries, and you instead decided to waste time by talking uselessly. I hope you see the light of [[conservative values]] and recover from the sin you are committing against our Lord. All the best.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:57, 15 December 2011 (EST)
:Let's refrain from ad-hominem when blocking, JamesWilson. It grows the stereotype that conservatives are all close-minded insulting people. Instead, gently rebuke them. 23:59, 13 February 2012 (EST)
::Apologies, but this particular editor, despite ''several'' warnings, continued to talk, talk, talk, without contributing anything of substance (or anything at all for this matter) to this article (or any other article), as can be witnessed here. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 06:42, 15 February 2012 (EST)
:::You provoked him and pressed him on. Had you just left him alone, maybe, just ignored or didn't criticize his original comment, he wouldn't have continued. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 16:37, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::No, I didn't. I was not the only one to rightfully criticize his original comment. Do you agree with it by chance?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:35, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::I meant "you" in its plural form. And no, I don't agree. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 17:46, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Protected? ==

Why is this protected? I would be interested in adding some more facts(100% referenced) to the article. As it is the article gives very little information on the project itself and just reads like an essay. If you want an essay on why it is wrong write one but an article should actually give information on the project in more than the lead. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 00:06, 14 February 2012 (EST)
::I will unlock it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:24, 14 February 2012 (EST)

== Rewrite ==

I've been working on a [http://conservapedia.com/User:Ayzmo/IGB rewrite of the article] to make it more encyclopedic. I've kept much of the content but rewrote the intro entirely and added a history section. I wasn't really sure how to work the criticism section. It needs a lot more work before it should be moved over here but I'd really appreciate any comments, suggestions, or criticisms on the talk page. Please don't alter what I've already written. If you put something on the talk page I'll find a way to work it into the article. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:43, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== project ==

It's definitely a "project," or at least more than a slogan. I would suggest moving it back. More information can be found [http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/ here]--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:19, 4 March 2012 (EST)
:It's fine where it is. Why make a big deal if "project" is in the title, anyway?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:22, 4 March 2012 (EST)
::[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=It_Gets_Better&diff=965969&oldid=965965 Another editor had moved it from It Gets Better Project to It Gets Better]--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:26, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:It Gets Better

2012-03-04T21:19:15Z

CamilleT: /* project */ new section

Pacific Institute

2012-02-22T06:59:33Z

CamilleT: Various structure changes, added that he has a PhD- Also, perhaps an article on the vaccine controversy is warranted

The '''Pacific Institute''' is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization established in Oakland, California to further environmental awareness. They represent yet another group claiming non-partisan when in fact, they are far-left [[liberal]]s. Like all liberal environmentalists, they deem [[Global Warming]] "settled science" and mock the opposition as "deniers" holding on to "willful ignorance". Per their website: "We conduct research, publish reports, recommend solutions, and work with decision makers, advocacy groups, and the public to change policy." Pacific Institute wants a healthy planet by promoting "[[environmental justice]]."

Peter H. Gleick is Pacific Institute's president and considers himself a scientist, having a Ph.D from [[UC Berkeley]]. Gleick is a Democrat, a denier of [[creationism]], and refuses to consider the links between [[Autism#Physical Factors|vaccines and autism]]. Gleick whined about how [[conservative]]s use bad science to push political agendas. He makes noise writing articles for the left-wing [[Huffington Post]]. In addition, he points a finger of shame at the supposed anti-science mentality of the [[Republican]] presidential candidates, then references other liberal sources as proof they are wrong.

In 2012, Gleick admitted to stealing private information from conservative think tank [[Heartland Institute]] on the subject of Climate Change. A number of institutions have accepted his resignation or removed his name from their membership. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref> <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/21/global-warming-activist-admits-to-stealing-heartland-documents-blames-skeptics-for-his-lack-of-judgment/ Global warming activist admits to stealing Heartland docs, Daily Caller, February 21, 2012]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.pacinst.org Official website]

[[Category:Global Warming]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
{{liberalism}}

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2012-01-03T03:40:48Z

CamilleT: /* Insults */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

==Please delete this category==
Can someone please delete this category (or give me the adequate rights): Italian_Cities, it is a duplicate of Italian_Cities_and_Towns. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:07, 27 December 2011 (EST)

== Insults ==

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

''Hi,

''I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

''http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

''Excerpt: '''I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!'''

''I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

''It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read [[Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]], where User:Conservative asks: '''''By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite?''''' I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to ''trim'' my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

::AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on this slope] and has a [http://creation.com/truth-decay significant case of "truth decay".] If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:*The EKKW is one of the more conservative ''Landeskirchen'' of the EKD.
:*Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of ''cuius regio eius religio''. So under the tent of a ''Landeskirche'' you will find various, often struggling opinions.
:*'''All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks.''' You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries.
:*I'm not the first one to be treated this way - [[User:MaxFletcher]] was insulted similarly.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various ''Landeskirchen'' would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate?
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

User:CamilleT

2011-12-16T13:25:58Z

CamilleT: /* Videos Concerning Gay Rights */

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxtop|CamilleT}}
{{user political compass|-7|-5}}
{{user guns harm}}
{{user free speech}}
{{user gay rights}}
{{user noforcedreligion}}
{{user evolutionScience}}
{{user GuardDogFear}}
{{user Bad-4-U}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==To do list==
#finish [[homeopathy]]
#create [[consistent life ethic]]
#Polish [[Bernard Henri Levy]]
#correct [[saline abortion]]
#create [[Evidence supporting general relativity]]: there is some out there, though the subject may be beyond my ken

==About me==
I was born in France, and moved to the United States with my family when I was four years old. I have lived in Arizona for most of my life.

== Preemptive Contention ==

Despite my passing defense of figures such as [[PZ Myers]] and [[Penn Jillette]] I am no fan of theirs. I am an atheist, but I am not a [[New Atheism|new atheist]]. I just want us all to get along, and I resent such people as I've just mentioned for making that more difficult.

==Videos Concerning Gay Rights==
'''''You don't have the right to deprive others of theirs'''''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-irAT0viF0 This makes me very angry.]
**[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_AeCUSXfmU The second part-see, especially, 7:25]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWem_KdLVVg Welcome to a lifetime of doubt and self-hatred]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV5PbrTySxY Concerning vile lies about gay men in general]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16203621 I know certain Conservapedians love their statistics, so here's some for you]

==On Islamophobia==
*[http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/06/john_hugh_gilmore_harassing_muslim_women.php I've never heard of this guy, and I doubt he's important or even reflects the Conservative mainstream, but maybe we can still learn something from the massively high levels of pathetic he's exuding]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14199078 Truly admirable behavior]
*[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/ Food for thought]
==On religion in the United States==
*[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7I/TD4p8ijT2kI/AAAAAAAAAxs/frIqlpLkCZM/s1600/Quit+Squirming+Cartoon.jpg A satirical cartoon targeting what I perceive as a victim complex among groups enjoying the status of 'majority']
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-c-welton-gaddy/two-visions-of-faith-tony-perkins-gay-bullying_b_937933.html?ref=fb&src=sp On separation of church and state]
==On politics==
*[http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/index.html I've never liked libertarianism]. Adherents seem more concerned with making money than they are with people.

==On media bias==
*[http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines This is interesting], though from some of the headlines I would not be surprised if it was parody

Talk:Abortion

2011-12-01T05:41:14Z

CamilleT: /* Abortion and breast cancer */

== Suggest Revert ==

The last sentence in the first paragraph on Abortion and Breast Cancer reads "Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades." which is evidenced by an article on the tobacco industry and its denials rather than anything related to abortion - not very poignant. Removed it, but apparently this should be there? Don't think that kind of boot-strapping sets a good example for the home-school kids.
Added a list of the liberal organizations who deny the link between breast cancer and abortion - saying "many organizations aligned with liberal politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection." at the end of the abortion section is vacuous - people should know who these people are denying such strong evidence. Added a list of organizations and citations to their denials but apparently these details aren't appropriate? Don't think [[George Washington]] would have removed demonstrable facts when we could "seek the truth and pursue it steadily"
Respectfully suggest reverting to previous version rather than censoring demonstrably valid edits
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 01:39, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Pro-Abortion Distortion ... Rebutted ==
I wanted to know the process of abortion, not the pro-life opinion on abortion. I am pro-life, but this page does not describe the actual abortion itself.

As provided by the national cancer institute (the real one, not the name-hijacking national cancer institution of abortion) there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage]</ref> The positive cancer preventing attributes of birth are distinct from the causality of cancer by abortion. The studies indicate that women who have abortions and women who do not give birth are at equal risk of breast cancer.

: Your comment is misleading. Read the entry with an open mind. The evidence is overwhelming that abortion increases the pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer.

: There's over a billion dollars and other incentives to deceive the public into accepting abortion. Don't be taken in by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

"About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child decide not to abort." Why is this sentence in bold? It might be an important piece of evidence, but the statistics are not 100% perfect, nor is there an obvious conclusion to draw from it. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:38, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Also, why is there a picture of an ultrasound which supposedly pictures Jesus? What does that have to do with abortion? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:43, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
: From my perspective, it looks like Jesus on the cross. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 03:50, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

== Rename Article? ==
I came to this article to read about what Abortion is, but instead I got completely overwhelmed by how bad it is. I actually had to go to Wikipedia to see what Abortion is, and how it is done. Then comming back here, I finally understood why ''such'' a large part of this article is devoted to why abortion is bad. Either there needs to be a section in this article that describes what abortion is, how it is done, etc... OR this article needs to be renamed to "Problems with Abortion" or something like that.

==Typo(s)===
<blockquote>
At the continued rate, racism by abortion will kill decimate the black populace of the U.S.
</blockquote> [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 18:28, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

To illustrate my point, let me make an analogy with a hypothetical article called "Drugs."

Conservapedia's article is like the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are bad. Stay away.''

Wikipedia's article is the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are a class of chemicals that affect the central nervous system. They are used for recreation... (informative stuff... more informative stuff, followed by liberal junk, liberal junk).''

Somebody who doesn't know what Drugs are going to find Wikipedia's article far more useful than conservapedia's, even though Drugs are bad. Can somebody please make ''this'' article more informative by mimicing Wikipedia but by also taking out the liberal junk, ''please''? --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 21:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:Did you search the term "Drugs"? And if they are not up to your standards, what can you do to improve them? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::Wait, you misunderstood me; I used "drugs" as an example to illustrate my point. There needs to be a section in this article ''about what abortion is'', and ''how it is done'' and ''why it is done''. Everything else in the article is fine. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 22:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== 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.

I agree wholeheartedly with this assertion. I think it is necessary to include a mention early on in the article to how the medical definition of abortion varies from the popular definition. [[User:ConcernedScientist|ConcernedScientist]] 10:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==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)

Ardent liberals don't think anything should be a litmus test for conservatism or for Christianity for that matter. Liberals, are not exactly champions for restraint of any kind. Obama's massive spending is a fine example of this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:29, 19 April 2010 (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]

Northern Ireland: Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland (not as the article states 'legal but rare'). In common with other countries where abortion is illegal, allowances have been made where carrying the child to term would put the mother at too great a risk, and therefore an abortion may be performed. Women from Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, often find themselves in a situation where they 'get on the boat' and travel to England for an abortion instead.

:That's largely true. There are exceptions where abortions can be performed in Northern Ireland, basically for health reasons [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1386450.stm]. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:: "Health" exceptions are notoriously broad in some countries, and can even include "financial health." It is in the interests of the abortion industry to exaggerate its complaints about limitations on abortion in its desire to expand its business.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== 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)

: The harm caused by the operation is most important and should receive greater weight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:45, 12 May 2008 (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

* Support. I am also a Christian, and while I might agree with some of the views expressed in this article I recognise my opinions as one side of an argument. When an article is as biased as this is present it detracts from the factual nature. I propose this article is restructured to include more factual material, and what exists at present condensed into a section titled "moral issues with abortion".

==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)

If a woman's chance of getting breast cancer is x, then what you're implying with articles like these headlines is that an abortion raises that chance to "x plus something", when the reality is that it stays the same - only if she gives birth does the probability go to "x minus something".
This is not the way a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should written. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:35, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

By the same logic you have used in this article about breast cancer; abstinence is as bad as an abortion. Both increase (to the same amount) the risk of breast cancer, as you are not having a baby (which you state decreases the risk of breast cancer). So the very thing you are suggesting people to do (abstinence), is something that increases breast cancer (your argument, as they wont have a baby) which is the reason you are telling people not to have an abortion. Surely, surely a contradiction here. Unless we can find a solution to the contradiction, this section on breast cancer needs to be removed.

: No, your logic is fallacious. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer more than not having children. Also, abstinence reduces the transfer of sexually transmitted diseases, and abstinence (outside of marriage) reduces the risk of health problems, including breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

:: [http://www.obgyn.net/displayarticle.asp?page=/english/pubs/articles/nuns] references a study that puts nuns at a greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/bcancer1.html] is another that refrences a study for nuns at greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.popline.org/docs/0078/690575.html] is a study itself that reads "Nuns displayed a striking excess in breast cancer mortality over the age span of 40-74 years and had consistently higher rates than controls for each age group above 39 years." Do you have any links to a study that shows a decreased risk for breast cancer for nuns (who I assume practice abstinence). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:57, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Nuns predictably would have an elevated risk of breast cancer. One who has an [[abortion]] is incurring that risk '''plus''' an increased risk arising from the interruption of a pregnancy. Note that pro-[[abortion]] advocates deny any increased risk of breast cancer from an [[abortion]], which makes no sense in light of what you just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 12 May 2008 (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)

: Multiple the number of abortions worldwide by the charges for those abortions. It's way over a billion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:44, 12 May 2008 (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)

:::"Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream!" -- Well, isn't it? The words have nothing to do with right and wrong, it's a term about popularity. Support for abortion is mainstream, as google defines it: ''The prevailing current of thought influence or activity supported by dominant cultures and institutions.'' [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 13:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, it's not mainstream, except by those who benefit from the [[abortion industry]] or are fooled by it. President [[George W. Bush]] was elected and re-elected by opposing [[abortion]], as does [[John McCain]].

==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)

The Hippocratic Oath forbids any kind of surgery in general, I feel that its use to decry abortion as a medically unacceptable procedure is outdated and inappropriate here.
[[User:Yatesan|Yatesan]] 9:57, 27 June 2008 (EST)

==Image==

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]]

:The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)

== Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States ==

Since the article is locked, I cannot make this change. (Not complaining about the block, as its need is obvious.) There are 2 or 3 extraneous spaces between the [3] footnote and the following period. On my browser, this happens to hit right at the beginning of a line and looks very odd. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child==
This is factually incorrect. The baby's heart begins to beat between 18-21 days after conception. Although it is unusual, it is possible, and does happen- particularly in cases of the so called "plan B" pill being used- that abortion occurs prior to the first heartbeat.

== Extreme Bias in Article! Specific quote found to support this ==

"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki. {{unsigned|Astinzo}} 20:59, 4 March 2008

:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

== Picture? ==

I'm not sure if the picture of the human fetus in utero included in this article could be considered family-friendly, considering its graphic and jarring nature and given that one of the Conservapedia Commandments is that articles must be family-friendly and unoffensive. {{unsigned|Pianycist}} 13:27, 10 April 2008

: Do you find a picture of an unborn child "graphic and jarring"? We don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Abortion and Suicide ==

Interested parties are encouraged to help develop the stub [[abortion and suicide]]. I've provided a good bit of documentation to reliable sources to get started. I also plan to do the same regarding a large number of studies showing a strong link between abortion and substance abuse. I have a ton of resources to contribute but not a lot of time for editing and fashioning them into a good, readable article. I would appreciate the help of additional editors.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 13:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Why is the article locked?==
I want to insert some information into the article about how supporters of abortion never deny that it is murder and instead just give meaningless statements such as "women should have the right to choose".--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 17:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Your see also list has [[Abortion Facts]] on there twice. Might be wise to remove one. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 14:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== Fetus wrong ==

The human fetus is inaccurate. abortions are ALMOST NEVER done anywhere near this point. Always stops the "beating heart" is also inaccurate because the heart has not developed. Use of this image is an example of bleeding-heart pandering.

: Please try again in a more coherent manner. Are you referring to the picture? Many, many [[abortions]] are done at that stage, and later. And doing an [[abortion]] earlier is a matter of degree, not a difference in kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pictures Generated ==

Is the first picture computer generated? It looks so realistic that its unrealistic.

: No, it's implausible to think a computer generated that photo. Many similar, actual photos are widely available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Ultimate Goal is Reducing Abortion, yes? ==

I think that this page should have a very stong message of how to reduce the number of abortions. I think that everyone, including the most rabid pro-lifers would have to agree that in an ideal society abortion would not exist. A quick investigation into which countries have extremely low abortion rates would be a starting point for what works. For example, Sweden, often quoted as the ideal liberal society with freely available sexual education and contraception for youth has an unacceptably high abortion rate. About the same as the U.S. But Holland and Belgium, both very secular societies with similar attitudes towards sexual education and contraception have abortion rates about half of the U.S. It appears that outlawing abortion has a dramatic effect on the number of abortions performed but there are also countries like Austria with liberal abortion laws that have extremely low abortion rates.

'''This wall chart shows worldwide abortion statistics and would be useful for anyone researching abortion, as I hope that many people use this site for.'''

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_Abortion_Policies_Chart/2007_WallChart.pdf

It is interesting to see how Canada's abortion rate is 25% less than the U.S. rate. They are relatively similar societies, with Canada being viewed as being more liberal, with more liberal abortion laws.

As well, to present both sides of the story, it should be noted that some researchers contend that outlawing abortion just pushes it underground. In a surprisingly balanced article for the liberal press, here is an article that presents both sides of the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Aside from working to outlaw abortion, I think that truly Christian, Conservative activists should research what programs are effective in reducing abortion rates. Abstinence seems not to work, and if contraception is the answer, I think that the small sin of premarital sex with protection far outweighs the big sin of murdering a child.

What do the site adminsitrators and readers think? Is this part of a balanced discussion of abortion.

Jeremyh

: I found the UN table to be liberal claptrap, spreading more misinformation than anything else. The table does confirm that Poland and Ireland, where abortion is illegal, have almost no abortions. Well, no kidding. As to other countries, the table does not differentiate between the various types of abortion regulations that have a big effect on numbers of abortion, such as informed consent, parental consent, bans on abortions after a certain number of weeks, etc. Are Austria's abortion laws really as liberal as the table claims? I doubt they are nearly as liberal as the United States. Also, note that demographics are vastly different between countries like the United States and Canada, and abortion rates vary widely based on demographics with all else the same.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the UN is probably not the best source for non-liberal information. I have found a better site that breaks down the laws somewhat better, but still is missing the consent aspect. (It appears to be a pro-life site)

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

As well it would be foolish and naive to assume that there are no abortions performed in Poland or Ireland. The figures that any goverment agency will give you are offical statistics. Any investigation into the exact number of illegal abortions performed in these countries are bound to be tainted with researcher prejudice. I don't know these figures, and I doubt that anyone really knows with any accuracy. Some liberal researchers put the figures questionably high in order to support their cause of keeping abortion legal. The fact is that abortion laws do not affect these illegal abortions.

I don't want to harp on Austria, but it just seemed so weird that I did a little research. Apparently they have extremely liberal abortion laws and even have legalized the 'abortion pill'. What the heck is going on there? Should we ignore countries like Austria and Belgium? Or should we see if they are doing something right to stop the indiscriminate murder of babies?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oso/2970/2001/00000001/00000001/art00002

I do not claim to know the answer, but it seems that a wider approach is needed to stop abortion in conjunction to working towards banning it. It may sound facetious, but we have had a 100% strictly enforced ban on murder (of adults)in this country for over 200 years and it has not stopped people from murdering each other. Of course we should ban abortion, but what else is in our arsenal to stop this evil? And what the heck are we doing wrong in the U.S. that our abortion rates higher than most Western European nations, and are only outstripped by former Communist countries where the culture was to use abortion as birth control?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

== Morality of Abortion ==

It seems so far that the morality of abortion hinges on the question of whether or not it involves termination of human life. Let me then pose this question: In medical research laboratories, colonies of human cells of various types are often grown in petri dishes in order to study medications and diseases at a cellular level. These cells metabolize (they are in fact alive) and are, genetically speaking, definitely human. If abortion is morally wrong because it involves the termination of human life, is the fixing and staining of human cell cultures morally wrong?
[[User:Cwb|Cwb]]

: Cells are not necessarily human lives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:: The question then becomes what is human life, and what is not? You state that cells are not always human life. But a human embryo is little more than a bundle of cells. What exactly makes an embryo a human life and human cell cultures not human life? [[User:Cwb|Cwb]] 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

::: A random bunch of cells can't become a human, but a embryo can. That's the difference. [[User:Patriot1505]]

:::: Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 611: “Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, '''from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle'''.”

''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 664: ”'''A new individual''' is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”

''The Gale Encyclopedia of Science'' 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, '''the developing human being''' is called an embryo.”

''The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science'' 1994, p 340: ” – in biology, the sequence of developmental stages through which members of a given species pass. Most vertebrates have a simple '''life cycle''' consisting of '''fertilization''' of sex cells or gametes, a period of development as an embryo, a period of juvenile growth after hatching or birth, and adulthood including sexual reproduction, and finally death.”

''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1290: ”Embryo. '''The developing individual''' between the time of the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. [...] At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), '''a new life has begun'''.”

''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1291: ”The period of pregnancy begins with the union of the sperm and egg. At the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception), '''a new life begins'''.”

''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 121: ”'''The new individual is established at the time of fertilization''', and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.”

''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 117: ”The fused sperm and egg, called zygote, '''is a new individual with full capacities for development in a normal environment'''.”

Human embryologist say:

Keith L. Moore: ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.)

William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.)

Bradley M. Patten: ”Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual“. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.) Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.” (1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.)

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.: ”'''Human development''' is a '''continuous process''' that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is '''fertilized''' by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.” (1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.)

Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller.: ”is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a genetically is thereby formed.” (1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.)

Another quote from Scott Gilbert in his book ''Developmental Biology'':

”Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. '''But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm.''' It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. [...] The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes-the sperm and the egg.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.chapter.176)

Besides, as we all consist of different tissues, every human being is just a "blob of tissues". But at the moment of conception, these tissues belong to certain human individual and are not just some kind of abstract organic matter that some day may become a human individual.

--[[User:JohanSB|JohanSB]] 09:13, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

== The Bible and Abortion ==

I am surprised to see that there is no mention of the Bible's explicit condemnation of abortion in this article. I will write up a section on this if a sysop is willing to unlock it later. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 18:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:I believe the relationship between the Bible and abortion is a complicated topic worthy of discussion; I have heard Christian pro-choice advocates quote Exodus 21:22-25, wherein God apparently deems men who kill an unborn child to be not guilty of murder. I, too, would be willing to contribute if a sysop unlocks the article, and will do my best to treat this subject with fairness. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 18:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: Just start a new entry, like the [[Abortion and the Bible]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::I did just that, thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 01:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)

== One-sided graphic display ==

The image at the top of the article is not representative of most aborted fetuses; it almost looks like a baby for crying out loud. An image like Fetus1.jpg would be more appropriate.

== What about women. ==

This Article says nothing about a woman's right to choose what she does with her own own body.
[[User:Hwuya|Hwuya]] 18:11, 24 November 2008 (EDT)
: one could argue that she makes a choice when she elects to become pregnant. I concede that special situation for rape may apply. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Abortion is murder ==

I was stunned to see that the word "murder" does not appear anywhere in the article. Is Conservapedia trying to placate liberals, or pander to liberal viewpoints? This is a simple matter of clear and logical thinking: murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Unborn children are innocent people: therefore, abortion is murder.

I am new here, and I humbly apologize if I am out of my depth, but I feel very strongly about this. I do not believe we should shy away from boldly stating the truth, even if the liberal media does. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but pro-life leader [[Henry Hyde]] didn't use the word "murder" either. That term entails a legal or moral judgment and this entry has more of a scientific nature, like the rest of this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:: Thank you for your reply. It's your decision, of course. I just believe it is the duty of Christians to judge immorality, where the Bible or even common sense dictates. We don't pretend that [[gay rights]] or [[liberal values]] are morally sound on those pages, and evading the issue here leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

:: I am happy to trust your judgment on this issue, though. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:55, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::I applaud both your sentiment and your decision. After all, it is discipline as well as truthfulness that distinguishes us from WP. [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 09:04, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Abortion is a million dollar industry ==

I would like to point out that abortion is not something done purely for profit, nor do those who run clinics do it for the purposes of earning a lot of money. I think this part of the article os erroneous.

: Wow, you've really been taken in by the abortion propaganda. Check how much the leading advocates of abortion make in one year. You'd be lucky to make the same amount in ten years of hard work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== The fetus in the picture... ==

Does anyone have any idea how old s/he is? I think it would benefit to say "A human fetus at ___ weeks old." [[User:Shatoyaah|Shatoyaah]] 18:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:I would say approximately 4-5 months, but I'm not entirely sure.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 18:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::It is approximately 3-4 months old.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 20:44, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

== How about high quality video? ==

How about links to high-quality video also, rather than merely ultrasounds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:16, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:Sure. Next time I get a chance. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:39, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Planned parenthood's racism ==

Should we include the incident where palnned parenthood called wanting less black people in the world "understandable"? And wasn't their founder also a racist?
:That information is in the [[Planned Parenthood]] article, actually. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:52, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

== Picture of the Smellie Forcep ==

Maybe it should be mentioned that it's not solely an "abortion tool" - it is used in regular childbirth as well. Rebranding it as an "abortion tool" is like naming a gun an "armed robbery tool". [[User:ATang|ATang]] 16:18, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

:The caption does not say or imply that it is solely an abortion tool. Also, while guns are overwhelmingly defensive in purpose, by a ratio of more than 100:1, I don't think the same can be said about the Smellie Forcep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:22, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

== unlock? ==

Can someone unlock or edit in for me under See Also this - [[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]? Thank you[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 20:13, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:Done as requested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Russia ==

In Russia abortion is allowed at any point during pregnancy. This is litteraly at ANY point until the umbilical cord is cutted. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia#Current_law</ref>

== Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war! ==

Starting this week, [[User:Conservative|Admin Conservative]] will be spreading awareness of Conservapedia's abortion material. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZm037jPNgc Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war!] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:01, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

==Definition of Abortion==

This article begins with a false statement: "Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy, often causing fetal pain."

:Actually ,a medically accurate definition is "an abortion is the untimely expulsion or removal of the unborn baby and associated tissue from the uterus." To be sure abortion is commonly as the article defines it. But many abortions are spontaneous; probably most married women have them.

:::IMO focusing on "abortion," leads to distortion of the moral reality, which is baby-murder.

Suggested revision:

::"Medically speaking, an abortion is the untimely expulsion or removal of an unborn baby and associated tissue from his mother's uterus.<ref>medical dictionary citations go here</ref>. However, in common usage, the term abortion is used to denote the induced killing of the unborn baby, often causing pain to the unborn baby. (See article on Baby Murder.) ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 16:02, 17 June 2010 (EDT))

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Change Title of Article to Baby-Murder==

Suggestion: Reduce the "Abortion" article to a sentence or two and put a link: "See Baby-Murder." "Baby-Murder" should be the title for most of this topic. Talking about "abortion" obscures the issue. ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 18:20, 17 June 2010 (EDT))

:Technically speaking you are correct, but that's why no one wants technocrats running anything. ;-)
:99% of the public isn't going to search for Baby Murder, even if pro-life. They will search abortion, and that is why the article is called Abortion. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:42, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganization ==

Can I reorganize the article, shifting some of it to specific sub-topic pages to make the main page less bulky?[[User:CDunigan|CDunigan]] 20:34, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

:I don't see a problem in doing that. You can also transclude parts onto a template and load it back onto the page that way, thus relieving some of the bulk as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:00, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

I have concerns about the changes already made, which give priority to a speculative poll while downgrading the fact that nearly 80% of women who see the ultrasound of their unborn child decide against abortion.

Like newspaper articles and good websites, ''Conservapedia'' entries prioritize the presentation of information based on significance. In this example, the fact about ultrasounds should carry more weight and receive higher priority than Guttmacher's speculative poll.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

:I made the edits reflecting the higher priority that should be given to facts (the percentage of women decide against abortion due to ultrasounds) relative to speculative polling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

::And I put it back. How the heck can we fight abortion if we don't even address why the women are sitting in the abortion clinic in the first place?

How much more significant can something be than WHY PEOPLE DO IT?

I've been a professional research writer on abortion. And I don't appreciate having extensively researched and relevant information simply yanked out because somebody else wants ONE SENTENCE to say everything that he thinks needs to be said on the topic.[[User:CDunigan|CDunigan]] 21:59, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

: I'm happy to discuss Guttmacher's polling approach and learn more about it. But in general polling data are often unreliable and are easily skewed. Polling data are not facts, like the ultrasound data are. An analogy would be to give polling data priority over actual election results.

: Did the Guttmacher poll provide the "reasons" to the women being surveyed, and ask them to choose between Guttmacher's options?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

:: The poll failed to mention the issue of seeing an ultrasound. The real reason that nearly 80% of women have abortions is simply this: they never saw an ultrasound of the unborn child. If a poll doesn't ask the right question, then it isn't going to get the correct answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

As a new user, I don't feel inclined to edit this article, but it feels very heavy on the front, with the table of content coming after a significant portion of the article. The issue is very crucial and atrocious, but our presentation should be more encyclopedic, with a short introduction, then a table of content, with so many sections before the content, it seems to violate the style guides I've been reading. You have to scroll to the contents, unless you've got an enormous monitor.--[[UserJohannesW|JohannesW]] 23:45, 22 September 2011 (EDT).

== Disappearance of [[abortion]] in [[Poland]] ==

Why I wrote that the reason abortion fell in Poland after the fall of the Soviet Union is due to abortion being illegal: Abortion is illegal in Poland. That is a fact, not an opinion. For reference, here are some links explaining this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4691192.stm, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12222281. I'm a conservative myself, and oppose abortion, but I do not think that it is fair that the purported reason for abortion dropping so drastically after the Soviet Union fell is because abortion is a communist undertaking, as is suggested.

: Abortion is highly correlated with communism, and communist attitudes. Abortion in the communist Soviet Union occurred at a rate many times that of the West, I think. So I'm not prepared to deny the connection. Conversely, abortion occurs at higher rates than in Poland in other nations where it is illegal, such as South America.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)

: A close reading of both of your links tends to reinforce my point. The first link (the BBC) notes that the Polish people associate the practice of abortion with the disliked and discredited communist Soviet Union. The second link (the NIH article) notes that the cost of abortion in Poland is a big factor. Government subsidies of abortion may matter more than the law, and presumably the communist government subsidized abortion heavily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 30 December 2010 (EST)

A major reason that abortion occurred at a higher rate is because there were much more people in the Soviet Union than in any Western country. I do not see how you can not see the connection between abortion becoming illegal and a sharp drop in its rate. I am entirely sure that abortion would not have dropped 99% had it not been declared illegal. Also, regarding Polish people associating the practice of abortion with the Soviet Union: of course they are going to associate it with the Soviet Union. Under the Soviet Union, abortion was legal, now it is not. After the American Revolution, people associated monarchy with England, because England was a monarchy, and they were then under a so-called republic. Also, the Soviet Union did not subsidize abortion. In fact, they subsidized families who had children, so there was an incentive to have a child, not destroy one.

: The connection between communism and high abortion rates can hardly be denied, historically, logically, and spiritually. The average married woman in the communist Soviet Union had numerous abortions. Communism legalized abortion in 1920, and presumably it was long subsidized there as phony "health care." Logically, treating everyone the same under communism means many abortions so that women can work just like men.

: Pro-abortion groups pretend that women in Poland want to have abortion but cannot because it is illegal. The truth is that the people of Poland genuinely do not want to have abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 30 December 2010 (EST)

The average Russian woman did not have multiple abortions. In 1964, the year when there the most abortions in Soviet history, there were 5.6 million abortions. I could not find statistics depicting the number of women in Russia during 1964, but this year, there are about 66 million Russian women above the age of 15. I find it extremely hard to believe that the amount of women in Russia multiplied by 23.6 in 46 years. Also, with all due respect, how can you know that Polish women do not want to have abortions?

: 66 million Russian woman over age 15 means only about 10 million or so between ages 17 and 27, when women are most likely to become pregnant. At 5.6 million abortions a year, that means 30% or so of women in that age group were having an abortion ''each year''. That's many abortions per average woman by the time she is 30.

: You've fallen for the liberal misinformation, and have much to learn. We all do. I urge you to open your mind and learn and contribute here. The statement that Polish women no longer have abortions because they are not allowed to is a biased conclusion from the data. There are many other, equally plausible explanations, such as (a) they don't want to have abortions and/or (b) abortions are no longer subsidized by government. Do you think the main reason that people don't swim in a ice cold, dirty lake in a public park is because it is illegal?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 30 December 2010 (EST)

== Abortion and breast cancer ==

Don't the World Health Organization, American Cancer Society, and Royal Cancer society all reject a link between breast cancer and abortion? [[User:EnochCrosby|EnochCrosby]] 21:20, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:There's no point arguing this anymore. This horse has been beaten to death, resuscitated, beaten back to death, and given a final good beating before being sent off to create glue. Improve Conservapedia in other ways, and maybe once you've proven yourself to the establishment you can bring this point up again.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:40, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Abortion

2011-12-01T05:40:37Z

CamilleT: /* Abortion and breast cancer */

== Suggest Revert ==

The last sentence in the first paragraph on Abortion and Breast Cancer reads "Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades." which is evidenced by an article on the tobacco industry and its denials rather than anything related to abortion - not very poignant. Removed it, but apparently this should be there? Don't think that kind of boot-strapping sets a good example for the home-school kids.
Added a list of the liberal organizations who deny the link between breast cancer and abortion - saying "many organizations aligned with liberal politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection." at the end of the abortion section is vacuous - people should know who these people are denying such strong evidence. Added a list of organizations and citations to their denials but apparently these details aren't appropriate? Don't think [[George Washington]] would have removed demonstrable facts when we could "seek the truth and pursue it steadily"
Respectfully suggest reverting to previous version rather than censoring demonstrably valid edits
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 01:39, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Pro-Abortion Distortion ... Rebutted ==
I wanted to know the process of abortion, not the pro-life opinion on abortion. I am pro-life, but this page does not describe the actual abortion itself.

As provided by the national cancer institute (the real one, not the name-hijacking national cancer institution of abortion) there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage]</ref> The positive cancer preventing attributes of birth are distinct from the causality of cancer by abortion. The studies indicate that women who have abortions and women who do not give birth are at equal risk of breast cancer.

: Your comment is misleading. Read the entry with an open mind. The evidence is overwhelming that abortion increases the pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer.

: There's over a billion dollars and other incentives to deceive the public into accepting abortion. Don't be taken in by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

"About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child decide not to abort." Why is this sentence in bold? It might be an important piece of evidence, but the statistics are not 100% perfect, nor is there an obvious conclusion to draw from it. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:38, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Also, why is there a picture of an ultrasound which supposedly pictures Jesus? What does that have to do with abortion? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:43, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
: From my perspective, it looks like Jesus on the cross. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 03:50, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

== Rename Article? ==
I came to this article to read about what Abortion is, but instead I got completely overwhelmed by how bad it is. I actually had to go to Wikipedia to see what Abortion is, and how it is done. Then comming back here, I finally understood why ''such'' a large part of this article is devoted to why abortion is bad. Either there needs to be a section in this article that describes what abortion is, how it is done, etc... OR this article needs to be renamed to "Problems with Abortion" or something like that.

==Typo(s)===
<blockquote>
At the continued rate, racism by abortion will kill decimate the black populace of the U.S.
</blockquote> [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 18:28, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

To illustrate my point, let me make an analogy with a hypothetical article called "Drugs."

Conservapedia's article is like the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are bad. Stay away.''

Wikipedia's article is the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are a class of chemicals that affect the central nervous system. They are used for recreation... (informative stuff... more informative stuff, followed by liberal junk, liberal junk).''

Somebody who doesn't know what Drugs are going to find Wikipedia's article far more useful than conservapedia's, even though Drugs are bad. Can somebody please make ''this'' article more informative by mimicing Wikipedia but by also taking out the liberal junk, ''please''? --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 21:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:Did you search the term "Drugs"? And if they are not up to your standards, what can you do to improve them? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::Wait, you misunderstood me; I used "drugs" as an example to illustrate my point. There needs to be a section in this article ''about what abortion is'', and ''how it is done'' and ''why it is done''. Everything else in the article is fine. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 22:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== 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.

I agree wholeheartedly with this assertion. I think it is necessary to include a mention early on in the article to how the medical definition of abortion varies from the popular definition. [[User:ConcernedScientist|ConcernedScientist]] 10:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==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)

Ardent liberals don't think anything should be a litmus test for conservatism or for Christianity for that matter. Liberals, are not exactly champions for restraint of any kind. Obama's massive spending is a fine example of this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:29, 19 April 2010 (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]

Northern Ireland: Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland (not as the article states 'legal but rare'). In common with other countries where abortion is illegal, allowances have been made where carrying the child to term would put the mother at too great a risk, and therefore an abortion may be performed. Women from Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, often find themselves in a situation where they 'get on the boat' and travel to England for an abortion instead.

:That's largely true. There are exceptions where abortions can be performed in Northern Ireland, basically for health reasons [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1386450.stm]. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:: "Health" exceptions are notoriously broad in some countries, and can even include "financial health." It is in the interests of the abortion industry to exaggerate its complaints about limitations on abortion in its desire to expand its business.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== 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)

: The harm caused by the operation is most important and should receive greater weight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:45, 12 May 2008 (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

* Support. I am also a Christian, and while I might agree with some of the views expressed in this article I recognise my opinions as one side of an argument. When an article is as biased as this is present it detracts from the factual nature. I propose this article is restructured to include more factual material, and what exists at present condensed into a section titled "moral issues with abortion".

==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)

If a woman's chance of getting breast cancer is x, then what you're implying with articles like these headlines is that an abortion raises that chance to "x plus something", when the reality is that it stays the same - only if she gives birth does the probability go to "x minus something".
This is not the way a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should written. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:35, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

By the same logic you have used in this article about breast cancer; abstinence is as bad as an abortion. Both increase (to the same amount) the risk of breast cancer, as you are not having a baby (which you state decreases the risk of breast cancer). So the very thing you are suggesting people to do (abstinence), is something that increases breast cancer (your argument, as they wont have a baby) which is the reason you are telling people not to have an abortion. Surely, surely a contradiction here. Unless we can find a solution to the contradiction, this section on breast cancer needs to be removed.

: No, your logic is fallacious. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer more than not having children. Also, abstinence reduces the transfer of sexually transmitted diseases, and abstinence (outside of marriage) reduces the risk of health problems, including breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

:: [http://www.obgyn.net/displayarticle.asp?page=/english/pubs/articles/nuns] references a study that puts nuns at a greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/bcancer1.html] is another that refrences a study for nuns at greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.popline.org/docs/0078/690575.html] is a study itself that reads "Nuns displayed a striking excess in breast cancer mortality over the age span of 40-74 years and had consistently higher rates than controls for each age group above 39 years." Do you have any links to a study that shows a decreased risk for breast cancer for nuns (who I assume practice abstinence). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:57, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Nuns predictably would have an elevated risk of breast cancer. One who has an [[abortion]] is incurring that risk '''plus''' an increased risk arising from the interruption of a pregnancy. Note that pro-[[abortion]] advocates deny any increased risk of breast cancer from an [[abortion]], which makes no sense in light of what you just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 12 May 2008 (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)

: Multiple the number of abortions worldwide by the charges for those abortions. It's way over a billion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:44, 12 May 2008 (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)

:::"Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream!" -- Well, isn't it? The words have nothing to do with right and wrong, it's a term about popularity. Support for abortion is mainstream, as google defines it: ''The prevailing current of thought influence or activity supported by dominant cultures and institutions.'' [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 13:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, it's not mainstream, except by those who benefit from the [[abortion industry]] or are fooled by it. President [[George W. Bush]] was elected and re-elected by opposing [[abortion]], as does [[John McCain]].

==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)

The Hippocratic Oath forbids any kind of surgery in general, I feel that its use to decry abortion as a medically unacceptable procedure is outdated and inappropriate here.
[[User:Yatesan|Yatesan]] 9:57, 27 June 2008 (EST)

==Image==

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]]

:The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)

== Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States ==

Since the article is locked, I cannot make this change. (Not complaining about the block, as its need is obvious.) There are 2 or 3 extraneous spaces between the [3] footnote and the following period. On my browser, this happens to hit right at the beginning of a line and looks very odd. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child==
This is factually incorrect. The baby's heart begins to beat between 18-21 days after conception. Although it is unusual, it is possible, and does happen- particularly in cases of the so called "plan B" pill being used- that abortion occurs prior to the first heartbeat.

== Extreme Bias in Article! Specific quote found to support this ==

"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki. {{unsigned|Astinzo}} 20:59, 4 March 2008

:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

== Picture? ==

I'm not sure if the picture of the human fetus in utero included in this article could be considered family-friendly, considering its graphic and jarring nature and given that one of the Conservapedia Commandments is that articles must be family-friendly and unoffensive. {{unsigned|Pianycist}} 13:27, 10 April 2008

: Do you find a picture of an unborn child "graphic and jarring"? We don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Abortion and Suicide ==

Interested parties are encouraged to help develop the stub [[abortion and suicide]]. I've provided a good bit of documentation to reliable sources to get started. I also plan to do the same regarding a large number of studies showing a strong link between abortion and substance abuse. I have a ton of resources to contribute but not a lot of time for editing and fashioning them into a good, readable article. I would appreciate the help of additional editors.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 13:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Why is the article locked?==
I want to insert some information into the article about how supporters of abortion never deny that it is murder and instead just give meaningless statements such as "women should have the right to choose".--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 17:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Your see also list has [[Abortion Facts]] on there twice. Might be wise to remove one. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 14:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== Fetus wrong ==

The human fetus is inaccurate. abortions are ALMOST NEVER done anywhere near this point. Always stops the "beating heart" is also inaccurate because the heart has not developed. Use of this image is an example of bleeding-heart pandering.

: Please try again in a more coherent manner. Are you referring to the picture? Many, many [[abortions]] are done at that stage, and later. And doing an [[abortion]] earlier is a matter of degree, not a difference in kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pictures Generated ==

Is the first picture computer generated? It looks so realistic that its unrealistic.

: No, it's implausible to think a computer generated that photo. Many similar, actual photos are widely available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Ultimate Goal is Reducing Abortion, yes? ==

I think that this page should have a very stong message of how to reduce the number of abortions. I think that everyone, including the most rabid pro-lifers would have to agree that in an ideal society abortion would not exist. A quick investigation into which countries have extremely low abortion rates would be a starting point for what works. For example, Sweden, often quoted as the ideal liberal society with freely available sexual education and contraception for youth has an unacceptably high abortion rate. About the same as the U.S. But Holland and Belgium, both very secular societies with similar attitudes towards sexual education and contraception have abortion rates about half of the U.S. It appears that outlawing abortion has a dramatic effect on the number of abortions performed but there are also countries like Austria with liberal abortion laws that have extremely low abortion rates.

'''This wall chart shows worldwide abortion statistics and would be useful for anyone researching abortion, as I hope that many people use this site for.'''

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_Abortion_Policies_Chart/2007_WallChart.pdf

It is interesting to see how Canada's abortion rate is 25% less than the U.S. rate. They are relatively similar societies, with Canada being viewed as being more liberal, with more liberal abortion laws.

As well, to present both sides of the story, it should be noted that some researchers contend that outlawing abortion just pushes it underground. In a surprisingly balanced article for the liberal press, here is an article that presents both sides of the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Aside from working to outlaw abortion, I think that truly Christian, Conservative activists should research what programs are effective in reducing abortion rates. Abstinence seems not to work, and if contraception is the answer, I think that the small sin of premarital sex with protection far outweighs the big sin of murdering a child.

What do the site adminsitrators and readers think? Is this part of a balanced discussion of abortion.

Jeremyh

: I found the UN table to be liberal claptrap, spreading more misinformation than anything else. The table does confirm that Poland and Ireland, where abortion is illegal, have almost no abortions. Well, no kidding. As to other countries, the table does not differentiate between the various types of abortion regulations that have a big effect on numbers of abortion, such as informed consent, parental consent, bans on abortions after a certain number of weeks, etc. Are Austria's abortion laws really as liberal as the table claims? I doubt they are nearly as liberal as the United States. Also, note that demographics are vastly different between countries like the United States and Canada, and abortion rates vary widely based on demographics with all else the same.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the UN is probably not the best source for non-liberal information. I have found a better site that breaks down the laws somewhat better, but still is missing the consent aspect. (It appears to be a pro-life site)

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

As well it would be foolish and naive to assume that there are no abortions performed in Poland or Ireland. The figures that any goverment agency will give you are offical statistics. Any investigation into the exact number of illegal abortions performed in these countries are bound to be tainted with researcher prejudice. I don't know these figures, and I doubt that anyone really knows with any accuracy. Some liberal researchers put the figures questionably high in order to support their cause of keeping abortion legal. The fact is that abortion laws do not affect these illegal abortions.

I don't want to harp on Austria, but it just seemed so weird that I did a little research. Apparently they have extremely liberal abortion laws and even have legalized the 'abortion pill'. What the heck is going on there? Should we ignore countries like Austria and Belgium? Or should we see if they are doing something right to stop the indiscriminate murder of babies?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oso/2970/2001/00000001/00000001/art00002

I do not claim to know the answer, but it seems that a wider approach is needed to stop abortion in conjunction to working towards banning it. It may sound facetious, but we have had a 100% strictly enforced ban on murder (of adults)in this country for over 200 years and it has not stopped people from murdering each other. Of course we should ban abortion, but what else is in our arsenal to stop this evil? And what the heck are we doing wrong in the U.S. that our abortion rates higher than most Western European nations, and are only outstripped by former Communist countries where the culture was to use abortion as birth control?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

== Morality of Abortion ==

It seems so far that the morality of abortion hinges on the question of whether or not it involves termination of human life. Let me then pose this question: In medical research laboratories, colonies of human cells of various types are often grown in petri dishes in order to study medications and diseases at a cellular level. These cells metabolize (they are in fact alive) and are, genetically speaking, definitely human. If abortion is morally wrong because it involves the termination of human life, is the fixing and staining of human cell cultures morally wrong?
[[User:Cwb|Cwb]]

: Cells are not necessarily human lives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:: The question then becomes what is human life, and what is not? You state that cells are not always human life. But a human embryo is little more than a bundle of cells. What exactly makes an embryo a human life and human cell cultures not human life? [[User:Cwb|Cwb]] 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

::: A random bunch of cells can't become a human, but a embryo can. That's the difference. [[User:Patriot1505]]

:::: Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 611: “Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, '''from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle'''.”

''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 664: ”'''A new individual''' is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”

''The Gale Encyclopedia of Science'' 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, '''the developing human being''' is called an embryo.”

''The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science'' 1994, p 340: ” – in biology, the sequence of developmental stages through which members of a given species pass. Most vertebrates have a simple '''life cycle''' consisting of '''fertilization''' of sex cells or gametes, a period of development as an embryo, a period of juvenile growth after hatching or birth, and adulthood including sexual reproduction, and finally death.”

''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1290: ”Embryo. '''The developing individual''' between the time of the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. [...] At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), '''a new life has begun'''.”

''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1291: ”The period of pregnancy begins with the union of the sperm and egg. At the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception), '''a new life begins'''.”

''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 121: ”'''The new individual is established at the time of fertilization''', and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.”

''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 117: ”The fused sperm and egg, called zygote, '''is a new individual with full capacities for development in a normal environment'''.”

Human embryologist say:

Keith L. Moore: ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.)

William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.)

Bradley M. Patten: ”Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual“. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.) Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.” (1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.)

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.: ”'''Human development''' is a '''continuous process''' that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is '''fertilized''' by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.” (1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.)

Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller.: ”is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a genetically is thereby formed.” (1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.)

Another quote from Scott Gilbert in his book ''Developmental Biology'':

”Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. '''But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm.''' It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. [...] The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes-the sperm and the egg.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.chapter.176)

Besides, as we all consist of different tissues, every human being is just a "blob of tissues". But at the moment of conception, these tissues belong to certain human individual and are not just some kind of abstract organic matter that some day may become a human individual.

--[[User:JohanSB|JohanSB]] 09:13, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

== The Bible and Abortion ==

I am surprised to see that there is no mention of the Bible's explicit condemnation of abortion in this article. I will write up a section on this if a sysop is willing to unlock it later. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 18:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:I believe the relationship between the Bible and abortion is a complicated topic worthy of discussion; I have heard Christian pro-choice advocates quote Exodus 21:22-25, wherein God apparently deems men who kill an unborn child to be not guilty of murder. I, too, would be willing to contribute if a sysop unlocks the article, and will do my best to treat this subject with fairness. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 18:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: Just start a new entry, like the [[Abortion and the Bible]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::I did just that, thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 01:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)

== One-sided graphic display ==

The image at the top of the article is not representative of most aborted fetuses; it almost looks like a baby for crying out loud. An image like Fetus1.jpg would be more appropriate.

== What about women. ==

This Article says nothing about a woman's right to choose what she does with her own own body.
[[User:Hwuya|Hwuya]] 18:11, 24 November 2008 (EDT)
: one could argue that she makes a choice when she elects to become pregnant. I concede that special situation for rape may apply. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Abortion is murder ==

I was stunned to see that the word "murder" does not appear anywhere in the article. Is Conservapedia trying to placate liberals, or pander to liberal viewpoints? This is a simple matter of clear and logical thinking: murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Unborn children are innocent people: therefore, abortion is murder.

I am new here, and I humbly apologize if I am out of my depth, but I feel very strongly about this. I do not believe we should shy away from boldly stating the truth, even if the liberal media does. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but pro-life leader [[Henry Hyde]] didn't use the word "murder" either. That term entails a legal or moral judgment and this entry has more of a scientific nature, like the rest of this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:: Thank you for your reply. It's your decision, of course. I just believe it is the duty of Christians to judge immorality, where the Bible or even common sense dictates. We don't pretend that [[gay rights]] or [[liberal values]] are morally sound on those pages, and evading the issue here leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

:: I am happy to trust your judgment on this issue, though. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:55, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::I applaud both your sentiment and your decision. After all, it is discipline as well as truthfulness that distinguishes us from WP. [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 09:04, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Abortion is a million dollar industry ==

I would like to point out that abortion is not something done purely for profit, nor do those who run clinics do it for the purposes of earning a lot of money. I think this part of the article os erroneous.

: Wow, you've really been taken in by the abortion propaganda. Check how much the leading advocates of abortion make in one year. You'd be lucky to make the same amount in ten years of hard work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== The fetus in the picture... ==

Does anyone have any idea how old s/he is? I think it would benefit to say "A human fetus at ___ weeks old." [[User:Shatoyaah|Shatoyaah]] 18:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:I would say approximately 4-5 months, but I'm not entirely sure.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 18:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::It is approximately 3-4 months old.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 20:44, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

== How about high quality video? ==

How about links to high-quality video also, rather than merely ultrasounds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:16, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:Sure. Next time I get a chance. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:39, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Planned parenthood's racism ==

Should we include the incident where palnned parenthood called wanting less black people in the world "understandable"? And wasn't their founder also a racist?
:That information is in the [[Planned Parenthood]] article, actually. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:52, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

== Picture of the Smellie Forcep ==

Maybe it should be mentioned that it's not solely an "abortion tool" - it is used in regular childbirth as well. Rebranding it as an "abortion tool" is like naming a gun an "armed robbery tool". [[User:ATang|ATang]] 16:18, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

:The caption does not say or imply that it is solely an abortion tool. Also, while guns are overwhelmingly defensive in purpose, by a ratio of more than 100:1, I don't think the same can be said about the Smellie Forcep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:22, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

== unlock? ==

Can someone unlock or edit in for me under See Also this - [[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]? Thank you[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 20:13, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

:Done as requested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

== Russia ==

In Russia abortion is allowed at any point during pregnancy. This is litteraly at ANY point until the umbilical cord is cutted. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia#Current_law</ref>

== Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war! ==

Starting this week, [[User:Conservative|Admin Conservative]] will be spreading awareness of Conservapedia's abortion material. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZm037jPNgc Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war!] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:01, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

==Definition of Abortion==

This article begins with a false statement: "Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy, often causing fetal pain."

:Actually ,a medically accurate definition is "an abortion is the untimely expulsion or removal of the unborn baby and associated tissue from the uterus." To be sure abortion is commonly as the article defines it. But many abortions are spontaneous; probably most married women have them.

:::IMO focusing on "abortion," leads to distortion of the moral reality, which is baby-murder.

Suggested revision:

::"Medically speaking, an abortion is the untimely expulsion or removal of an unborn baby and associated tissue from his mother's uterus.<ref>medical dictionary citations go here</ref>. However, in common usage, the term abortion is used to denote the induced killing of the unborn baby, often causing pain to the unborn baby. (See article on Baby Murder.) ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 16:02, 17 June 2010 (EDT))

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Change Title of Article to Baby-Murder==

Suggestion: Reduce the "Abortion" article to a sentence or two and put a link: "See Baby-Murder." "Baby-Murder" should be the title for most of this topic. Talking about "abortion" obscures the issue. ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 18:20, 17 June 2010 (EDT))

:Technically speaking you are correct, but that's why no one wants technocrats running anything. ;-)
:99% of the public isn't going to search for Baby Murder, even if pro-life. They will search abortion, and that is why the article is called Abortion. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:42, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganization ==

Can I reorganize the article, shifting some of it to specific sub-topic pages to make the main page less bulky?[[User:CDunigan|CDunigan]] 20:34, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

:I don't see a problem in doing that. You can also transclude parts onto a template and load it back onto the page that way, thus relieving some of the bulk as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:00, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

I have concerns about the changes already made, which give priority to a speculative poll while downgrading the fact that nearly 80% of women who see the ultrasound of their unborn child decide against abortion.

Like newspaper articles and good websites, ''Conservapedia'' entries prioritize the presentation of information based on significance. In this example, the fact about ultrasounds should carry more weight and receive higher priority than Guttmacher's speculative poll.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

:I made the edits reflecting the higher priority that should be given to facts (the percentage of women decide against abortion due to ultrasounds) relative to speculative polling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

::And I put it back. How the heck can we fight abortion if we don't even address why the women are sitting in the abortion clinic in the first place?

How much more significant can something be than WHY PEOPLE DO IT?

I've been a professional research writer on abortion. And I don't appreciate having extensively researched and relevant information simply yanked out because somebody else wants ONE SENTENCE to say everything that he thinks needs to be said on the topic.[[User:CDunigan|CDunigan]] 21:59, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

: I'm happy to discuss Guttmacher's polling approach and learn more about it. But in general polling data are often unreliable and are easily skewed. Polling data are not facts, like the ultrasound data are. An analogy would be to give polling data priority over actual election results.

: Did the Guttmacher poll provide the "reasons" to the women being surveyed, and ask them to choose between Guttmacher's options?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

:: The poll failed to mention the issue of seeing an ultrasound. The real reason that nearly 80% of women have abortions is simply this: they never saw an ultrasound of the unborn child. If a poll doesn't ask the right question, then it isn't going to get the correct answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

As a new user, I don't feel inclined to edit this article, but it feels very heavy on the front, with the table of content coming after a significant portion of the article. The issue is very crucial and atrocious, but our presentation should be more encyclopedic, with a short introduction, then a table of content, with so many sections before the content, it seems to violate the style guides I've been reading. You have to scroll to the contents, unless you've got an enormous monitor.--[[UserJohannesW|JohannesW]] 23:45, 22 September 2011 (EDT).

== Disappearance of [[abortion]] in [[Poland]] ==

Why I wrote that the reason abortion fell in Poland after the fall of the Soviet Union is due to abortion being illegal: Abortion is illegal in Poland. That is a fact, not an opinion. For reference, here are some links explaining this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4691192.stm, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12222281. I'm a conservative myself, and oppose abortion, but I do not think that it is fair that the purported reason for abortion dropping so drastically after the Soviet Union fell is because abortion is a communist undertaking, as is suggested.

: Abortion is highly correlated with communism, and communist attitudes. Abortion in the communist Soviet Union occurred at a rate many times that of the West, I think. So I'm not prepared to deny the connection. Conversely, abortion occurs at higher rates than in Poland in other nations where it is illegal, such as South America.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)

: A close reading of both of your links tends to reinforce my point. The first link (the BBC) notes that the Polish people associate the practice of abortion with the disliked and discredited communist Soviet Union. The second link (the NIH article) notes that the cost of abortion in Poland is a big factor. Government subsidies of abortion may matter more than the law, and presumably the communist government subsidized abortion heavily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 30 December 2010 (EST)

A major reason that abortion occurred at a higher rate is because there were much more people in the Soviet Union than in any Western country. I do not see how you can not see the connection between abortion becoming illegal and a sharp drop in its rate. I am entirely sure that abortion would not have dropped 99% had it not been declared illegal. Also, regarding Polish people associating the practice of abortion with the Soviet Union: of course they are going to associate it with the Soviet Union. Under the Soviet Union, abortion was legal, now it is not. After the American Revolution, people associated monarchy with England, because England was a monarchy, and they were then under a so-called republic. Also, the Soviet Union did not subsidize abortion. In fact, they subsidized families who had children, so there was an incentive to have a child, not destroy one.

: The connection between communism and high abortion rates can hardly be denied, historically, logically, and spiritually. The average married woman in the communist Soviet Union had numerous abortions. Communism legalized abortion in 1920, and presumably it was long subsidized there as phony "health care." Logically, treating everyone the same under communism means many abortions so that women can work just like men.

: Pro-abortion groups pretend that women in Poland want to have abortion but cannot because it is illegal. The truth is that the people of Poland genuinely do not want to have abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 30 December 2010 (EST)

The average Russian woman did not have multiple abortions. In 1964, the year when there the most abortions in Soviet history, there were 5.6 million abortions. I could not find statistics depicting the number of women in Russia during 1964, but this year, there are about 66 million Russian women above the age of 15. I find it extremely hard to believe that the amount of women in Russia multiplied by 23.6 in 46 years. Also, with all due respect, how can you know that Polish women do not want to have abortions?

: 66 million Russian woman over age 15 means only about 10 million or so between ages 17 and 27, when women are most likely to become pregnant. At 5.6 million abortions a year, that means 30% or so of women in that age group were having an abortion ''each year''. That's many abortions per average woman by the time she is 30.

: You've fallen for the liberal misinformation, and have much to learn. We all do. I urge you to open your mind and learn and contribute here. The statement that Polish women no longer have abortions because they are not allowed to is a biased conclusion from the data. There are many other, equally plausible explanations, such as (a) they don't want to have abortions and/or (b) abortions are no longer subsidized by government. Do you think the main reason that people don't swim in a ice cold, dirty lake in a public park is because it is illegal?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 30 December 2010 (EST)

== Abortion and breast cancer ==

Don't the World Health Organization, American Cancer Society, and Royal Cancer society all reject a link between breast cancer and abortion? [[User:EnochCrosby|EnochCrosby]] 21:20, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:There's no point arguing this here. This horse has been beaten to death, resuscitated, beaten back to death, and given a final good beating before being sent off to create glue. Improve Conservapedia in other ways, and maybe once you've proven yourself to the establishment you can bring this point up again.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:40, 1 December 2011 (EST)

User talk:CamilleT

2011-11-26T18:27:26Z

CamilleT: Undo revision 940641 by SamRSC (talk) I have, but I find that Conservapedia is more interesting.

<center><big><big><big>'''Please do not repost comments removed by administrators'''
</big></big></big></center> 
{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:27, 24 May 2011 (EDT)}}

==Santorum==
We're gonna need the Dan Savage article to fill in the red link at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:01, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:Alright. I'll see what I can do.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:03, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
::How's the [[Dan Savage]] page coming? Not read for prime time? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:01, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
:::give me a day or so, I just got a new toilet installed in my apartment and the old one leaked everywhere while I was taking it out and I really need to clean the place up and stop going on the internet!--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:08, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

== Sarkozy ==

Vive la France... sans Sarkozy! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 22:29, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:Pienso que la derecha francés es mejor que la derecha Americana, pero solo para las libertades sociales. Los dos necessitan mente el tercer mundo que se rompió en el primer lugar (lo siento por mi espanol de idioto)--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:39, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

== Media Bias ==

I looked into those headlines, yes those are authentic Fox News. I don't get the bias part. The AP and Fox have different target audiences. Just because the title changes doesn't mean it is stolen. In addition, the story had AP attribution on the picture. I am sure AP is aware or would've cried intellectual property rights.

Get a better idea of the leftwing side of media bias, which is the absolute scourge of the American people, view this link on Dear Leader economics. [http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/06/unexpectedly-compilation.html]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:38, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
:I only skimmed through the post and found it amusing. I don't believe Fox "stole" the stories, I just think they put their own spin on them. I'll have a look at your link (I get most of my news from AP, APF, and Reuters from my Yahoo! homepage, and sometimes NPR when I feel like turning on the radio). Can't promise a conversion though ;) --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:56, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
::I looked at your link, but I'm unsure of what conclusions I should take from it. I think it's normal that predictions fall short of reality. It also depends on which experts you consult. Were they referring to their own experts or the estimations of the Obama administration?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:19, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

==Hello==
Salut de l'Angleterre :) Just wanted to say hi, I admire the way you have been posting in the last few days and I think you are helping a lot to improve the quality of this encyclopedia! Keep up the good work! And, oui, je parle francais :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 16:01, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
:Pleased to meet you, and glad to be of service--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:01, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

== No!! ==

Please, PLEASE, revert your edit with that link to the essay response. You should know how this place works (it doesn't). [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 16:18, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
:Don't worry. It was not an unreasonable deed on my part, and I'm sure the administrators will understand. I was merely facilitating access to the replies to the Question Evolution campaign. I have also proven myself with some quality contributions and Conservapedia's administrators know I'm not here to cause trouble. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:25, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::It's a bit premature to declare that you have "proven yourself", and that is a matter one usually leaves to others. Consider yourself on probation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Told you. Sorry. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 19:17, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== a warning ==

I have publicly said that I do not agree with everything at Conservapedia. With being said, linking to a source which cites material from a trashy site which is associated with wiki vandals was a poor choice. The website is filled with obsessive underachievers and their content reflects this matter. I would suggest not doing it again. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:20, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
:As you wish. In my defense, though, I believe the link was necessary in order to communicate the answers to the questions. Worry not: I shall henceforth comply and never link there again--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:25, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
::That person could have easily posted that material at another website. Perhaps, it was just a cheap publicity ploy by a group of obsessive underachievers who have a penchant to do wiki vandalism. I think they are angry that their fun house mirror distortion of reality (also known as [[atheism]]) isn't gaining much traction [[Atheism and the internet|on the worldwide web]] or [[Atheist Population|in the world at large.]] :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:21, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, the answers were there, as I'm sure they are wherever else other online evolutionists go. Try talk.origins or something if you can't bear the vandal site.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:12, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
::::Pat "answers" don't count. By pat answers I mean non-answers which are evasive. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:40, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Addendum: I hope that clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:43, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Then we'll have to agree to disagree as to the content of the answers. Thanks for clarifying--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:45, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

==Bernard Henri Levi==
Could you review the new entry at [[Bernard Henri Levi]], you may be familiar with the subject. I would be in interested in any comments you may have. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
:I'd love to. I'll leave some comments on the talk page, maybe make some edits and add references. Thanks for restoring my user page!--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:58, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Citing a reference twice ==

To cite a refernce multiplew times, use <nowiki><ref name="enter something here">ref goes here</ref></nowiki>, and then <nowiki><ref name="same as first citation" /></nowiki> for any subsequent citations. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 19:26, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Post-partum depression ==

How do you feel about "spiritual guide" as opposed to "holy man"? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 08:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:works for me--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 09:35, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== RE: Good to see you! ==

Thanks. I was recently unblocked from here. I'm surprised to see another user from my wiki of preference here. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 16:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Pièce de résistance of Conservapedia content relating to atheism ==

I just thought I would let you know that the [[pièce de résistance]] of Conservapedia content relating to [[atheism]] that I plan on creating and posting will not be a satire/comedy that is featured on [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]], but rather an article. Maybe a satire or two could be created as well though.

Perhaps, it will gain a larger viewership than the Conservapedia article on the [[atheism and obesity|LARGE members of the atheist community]]. I didn't expect to the article on [[Atheism and cowardice]] for a while, but some recent events changed the timing of the creation and posting of this article. I may create the "[[pièce de résistance]] of Conservapedia content relating to [[atheism]]" in 2011 or perhaps 2012. Given the unpredictability of my future schedule and the unpredictability on how fast atheism will shrivel to a shadow of its former self due to the efforts of [[Shockofgod]] co-laboring with the Almighty[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I], it is hard to say when the article will come out. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:26, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:I look forward to reading it. Just be sure not to disparage bystanders such as I this time, please.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 10:57, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
::There has been a request to create the [[Pièce de résistance|pièce de résistance]] of atheism related material at Conservapedia expeditiously. Plus, there is still some confusion on the format it will take. The pièce de résistance will take the format of an article on atheism and not an essay, although there may be a few accompanying related satirical essays that may follow. As far as the timing of the release of the article, I will not say when it will be released. It may be very soon, it may be longer. But [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9SAycHK1o4 here is a video] for atheists to take into consideration. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Village Voice

2011-11-24T05:38:01Z

CamilleT: /* Involvement in child sex trafficking */

The '''''Village Voice''''' is a leading extreme [[liberal]] free weekly newspaper published in [[New York City]], having a free circulation of perhaps 240,000 per week. It spices its commentary and articles with occasional profanity and sometimes cartoons mocking [[Republican Party]] officials, such as former Vice President [[Dick Cheney]].

Founded in 1955 in a two-bedroom apartment in [[Greenwich Village]] by Dan Wolf, Ed Fancher and Norman Mailer, the ''Village Voice'' remains one of the most influential voices of the [[American]] far [[left]]. The offices of the paper are at Cooper Square in the East Village.

In 2005 the Village Voice was purchased by a media conglomerate and there has been criticism of its perceived change in character:<ref>http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/communitydevelopment/20070212/20/2098/</ref>

:The Village Voice is now managed by two libertarians from Phoenix, Arizona. They merged New Times with Village Voice Media, they took the name, Village Voice Media, but the controlling party are these two from Phoenix. They came to town, they fired veterans, they imposed conditions that were so difficult for others that they resigned, they lost an editor. In the view of many veterans at the Voice, they crushed the spirits of the newspaper and tried to impose a style whose fit for the city remains open to question. For example, many people at the Voice were concerned that there was a political purge ... in my view that's not very alternative at all.

==Involvement in child sex trafficking==
Village Voice Media has come under fire following a number of arrests for child prostitution were associated with Village Voice owned website backpage.com, and advertising site for "call girls" and "escorts." Underage girls were advertising their "services" on the website.<ref>http://www.newschannel5.com/story/13072226/man-two-teen-girls-arrested-in-prostitution-sting?redirected=true</ref><ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/19/6-charged-with-child-prostitution/UPI-94681282275026/</ref><ref>http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail6371.cfm?Id=93236</ref> In 2010 one of the victims filed a lawsuit against Village Voice alleging that they aided and abetted forced prostitution, and that they had strong suspicions of illegal activity present on their site.<ref>http://ia600505.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.moed.108973/gov.uscourts.moed.108973.1.0.pdf</ref> A petition was started by Groundswell, a human rights group, to get Village Voice Media to close backpage.con and to cease providing a platform for sex trafficking of youths.<ref>http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-village-voice-media-to-stop-child-sex-trafficking-on-backpagecom</ref> Operation Broken Silence, an anti-slavery group, released reports in conjunction with the Imagine Foundation, an anti-child slavery group discussing the culpability of backpage.com and the impact of its operations in Northeast Ohio and the area surrounding Memphis, Tenessee.<ref>http://www.operationbrokensilence.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cleveland-Report-Final-Release1.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.operationbrokensilence.org/downloads/OBS-Backpage-Report.pdf</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Dan Savage]], journalist and columnist for Village Voice's newspaper ''The Stranger''.
== References ==

<references/>

[[category:United States Newspapers]]

Talk:Science and speculation

2011-11-24T03:59:11Z

CamilleT:

You are too junior a contributor to replace an entire article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:There wasn't much of an article in the first place. I say keep the quote and place it atop his version.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:59, 23 November 2011 (EST)

American Homefront, World War II

2011-11-24T02:57:41Z

CamilleT: /* Comparative Consumer Spending */ removing one of many non-existant images from this article

The '''American home front during World War II''' covers all the developments inside the United States, 1940-1945. For comparisons with other nations see [[World War II Homefront]]

==Economic mobilization==

Financier [[Bernard Baruch]] argued that in modern war there was little room for free enterprise. He said Washington must control all aspects of the economy and that both business and unions must be subservient to the nation's security interest. Furthermore, price controls were essential to prevent inflation and to maximize military power per dollar. He wanted labor to be organized to facilitate optimum production. Baruch believed labor should be cajoled, coerced, and controlled as necessary: a central government agency would orchestrate the allocation of labor. He supported what was known as a "work or fight" bill. Baruch advocated the creation of a permanent superagency similar to his old Industries Board. Thus Baruch proposed to freeze economic freedom during war in order to preserve it for peace. His approach enhanced the role of civilian businessmen and industrialists in determining what was needed and who would produce it.<ref>Bernard Baruch, ''The Public Years,'' (1957) pp 321?28; Kerry E. Irish, "Apt Pupil: Dwight Eisenhower and the 1930 Industrial Mobilization Plan" ''The Journal of Military History'' 70.1 (2006) 31-61.</ref> Baruch's ideas were largely adopted, with [[James Byrnes]] appointed to carry them out.

Baruch was a consultant on economic matters and proposed or supported a number of measures including a [[pay-as-you-go tax]] plan as proposed by [[Beardsley Ruml]] and worked out by [[Milton Friedman]].

Baruch proposed to stockpile rubber and tin; and started an emergency synthetic rubber program to replace natural rubber, the sources of which were under Japanese control. To conserve rubber, gasoline was rationed (because that was easier than rationing tires.)

===Munitions===
[[File:Ww2munitions.jpg|thumb|450px|US Munitions output 1941-43; output in 1944 was even higher]]
The mobilization of industry was guided by the rhetoric of mass production, yet most aircraft factories traditionally relied on more traditional hand-crafted processes that allowed for quick production acceleration and frequent design changes, but required highly skilled workers who produced a limited output. To build a thousand planes a day entirely new methods were needed, with gigantic factories and a large, much less skilled workforce (many of whom were women). Mass production was implemented by Henry Ford and his B-24 bomber plant, yet Grumman and General Motors' Eastern Aircraft, while largely shunned Detroit-style production methods nevertheless manufactured the bulk of the US Navy's carrier aircraft.<ref>Ferguson, 2005</ref>

==Comparative Consumer Spending==
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+ '''Real Value Consumer Spending'''
! || 1937 || 1939 || 1940 || 1941 || 1942 || 1943 || 1944 || 1945
|- align="center"
! Japan
| 100 || 107 || 109 || 111 || 108 || 99 || 93 || 78
|- align="center"
! Germany
| 100 || 108 || 117 || 108 || 105 || 95 || 94 || 85
|- align="center"
! USA
| 100 || 96 || 103 || 108 || 116 || 115 || 118 || 122
|-
| align="center" colspan="9" | ''Source: Jerome B Cohen, Japan's Economy in War and Reconstruction (1949) p 354''
|}
===Civilian consumption and rationing===

*see [[Office of Price Administration]]
* see also [[Rationing]]

Civilian consumption increased 22% during the war, though there were many shortages in critical areas. Production stopped on many civilian items, such as automobiles, new houses, and new appliances. Many commodities, such as meat, sugar, butter, coffee, gasoline, tires, shoes and clothing were rationed. Local schools set up stations where people could get their ration coupons (with teachers handling the paperwork.) Each person (regardless of age) received the same food and clothing coupons. To purchase an item three things were needed: the storekeeper had to have the item in the first place, the purchaser had to have the cash, and had to have the coupons. Most automobile drivers received coupons for 3 gallons a week; those who could document special needs received extra gasoline coupons. (There was plenty of gasoline; the rationing was an efficient way to ration automobile tires, with rubber in very short supply.) Bread, milk and beer were not rationed. People eating in restaurants had to pay with cash and ration coupons. Rationing was generally supported by the civilian population, although there was some [[black market]] activity, that is, purchase of an item without the coupons. The government hunted down and prosecuted black marketeers. There was much "gray market" activity--that is family and neighbors selling or trading ration coupons; that was technically illegal but rarely prosecuted.

The main result was a striking egalitarianism of consumption, especially regarding food. Rationing was needed due to the needs of the men and women serving overseas. The commodities mentioned above were a very important key to the success of the US war effort. Also, rationing was also needed due to the limited shipping capabilities during the war. Many cargo ships were converted from public use to military use to aid in the war effort.

Bentley (1998) argues that wartime food rationing encouraged planners, consumers, and producers alike to focus on the communitarian dimensions of the American war effort. Rationing drew women into the national wartime effort, but the result was "simultaneously to elevate women's status and to maintain gender hierarchies." The [[Office of Price Administration]] instituted food rationing to combat high inflation while ensuring equitable distribution of scarce resources; from the start, it saw women as essential collaborators in a new, and democratic, practice. Rationing mobilized women as "wartime homemakers," especially as consumers who faced the challenge of providing meals while restricting sugar and meat consumption. (Ironically, although women worked in them, too, victory gardens and food production were more often viewed as men's work.) Women's work as food preparers also held the power to remind Americans daily of what the nation was collectively fighting for ("Freedom from want").

===Conversion to war effort===
The War and Navy departments purchased vast quantities of supplies; together with other war agencies they accounted for 40% of GNP by 1944. Automobile plants ceased production of passenger cars, creating a shortage of them in the consumer market. Wartime efforts were focused on aircraft engines, army trucks and tanks. Industrial production of wartime needs was established more quickly than any time before in history, however in many plants, periodic shortages of parts would bring the assembly lines to a halt, then require overtime from the employees (to meet quotas) when the parts arrived.<ref>Vatter, ''The U.S. Economy in World War II'' 1985.</ref>

The [[War Production Board]] (WPB) was established in 1942 by executive order of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The purpose of the board was to regulate the production and allocation of materials and fuel during World War II in the United States. It rationed such things as gasoline, heating oil, metals, rubber, and plastics. It was dissolved shortly after the defeat of Japan in 1945.

==Taxes and controls==
Federal tax policy was highly contentious during the war, with a liberal Roosevelt battling a [[Conservative coalition|conservative Congress]]. Everyone agreed on the need for high taxes to pay for the war. Roosevelt tried to impose a 100% tax on incomes over $25,000 (which failed to pass), while Congress enlarged the base downward. By 1944 nearly every employed person was paying federal income taxes (compared to 10% in 1940).

Many controls were put on the economy. The most important were price controls, imposed on most products, and monitored by the OPA. Wages were also controlled. In addition the military, which purchased upwards of 40% of the GNP, imposed priorities that largely shaped industrial production.<ref>Koistinen, ''Arsenal of World War II'' (2004); Vatter, ''The U.S. Economy in World War II'' 1985.</ref>

===Labor===
The unemployment problem ended in the United States with the beginning of World War II, as stepped up wartime production created millions of new jobs, and the draft pulled young men out.<ref>Miller and Cornford eds. ''American Labor in the Era of World War II'' (1995)</ref>

In the [[United States]], women also joined the workforce to replace men who had joined the forces, though in fewer numbers. [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] stated that the efforts of civilians at home to support the war through personal sacrifice was as critical to winning the war as the efforts of the soldiers themselves. "[[Rosie the Riveter]]" became the symbol of women laboring in manufacturing. The war effort brought about significant changes in the role of women in society as a whole. Upon the end of the war, many of the munitions factories simply closed. Other women were replaced by returning veterans. However most women who wanted to continue working did so.

Labor shortages were felt in [[agriculture]], even though most farmers were given an occupational exemption and few were drafted. [[Beekeeping|Beekeepers]] also gained exemptions and favored treatment, because [[beeswax]] was considered a critical wartime need for rustproof coatings on vehicles and weapons going abroad. However large numbers of farm hands and rural residents volunteered for military service or moved to cities for factory jobs. At the same time many agricultural [[commodity|commodities]] were more needed for the military and for the civilian populations of allies. In some areas schools were temporarily closed at harvest time to enable students to work. Several hundred thousand enemy [[prisoner of war|prisoners of war]] were used as farm laborers.

===Labor Unions===
The war mobilization also changed the [[Congress of Industrial Organizations|CIO's]] relationship with both employers and the national government; much less is known about the rival [[American Federation of Labor|AFL]] during the war.<ref>Lichtenstein, ''Labor's War at Home: The CIO in World War II'' (2003) </ref>

Nearly all the unions that belonged to the CIO were fully supportive of both the war effort and of the Roosevelt administration. However the coal miners led by John L Lewis, who had taken an isolationist stand in the years leading up to the war in a show of solidarity with the Soviet Union. Because Roosevelt was helping to defeat Germany, and Germany was allied to Russia, the left wing unionists tried to slow down the war effort through strikes in 1940-41. As soon as Russia was attacked by Germany they changed positions and became all-out supporters of the war. Indeed the leftists tried to stop rank-and-file members from striking for higher wages because that would slow the flow of war material to Russia. The CIO supported a wartime no-strike pledge that aimed to eliminate not only major strikes for new contracts, but also the innumerable small strikes called by [[shop steward]]s and local union leadership to protest particular grievances.

The CIO did not, on the other hand, strike over wages during the war. In return for labor's no-strike pledge, the government offered arbitration to determine the wages and other terms of new contracts. Wages went up, and so did prices. The union members made very high incomes thanks to overtime (paid at 150%), and rapid promotions to higher-paid positions, as well as jobs for all family members who wanted one.

The CIO unions grew much larger and stronger during the war. The government put pressure on employers to recognize unions to avoid the sort of turbulent struggles over union recognition of the 1930s, while unions were generally able to obtain maintenance of membership clauses, a form of union security, through arbitration and negotiation. Workers also won benefits, such as vacation pay, that had been available only to a few in the past while wage gaps between higher skilled and less skilled workers narrowed.

The experience of bargaining on a national basis, while restraining local unions from striking, also tended to accelerate the trend toward bureaucracy within the larger CIO unions. Some, such as the Steelworkers, had always been centralized organizations in which authority for major decisions resided at the top. The UAW, by contrast, had always been a more grassroots organization, but it also started to try to rein in its maverick local leadership during these years.

The CIO also had to confront deep racial divides in its own membership, particularly in the UAW plants in Detroit, where white workers sometimes struck to protest the promotion of black workers to production jobs, but also in shipyards in Alabama, mass transit in Philadelphia, and steel plants in Baltimore. The CIO leadership, particularly those in further left unions such as the Packinghouse Workers, the UAW, the NMU and the Transport Workers, undertook serious efforts to suppress hate strikes, to educate their membership and to support the Roosevelt Administration's tentative efforts to remedy racial discrimination in war industries through the [[Fair Employment Practices Commission]]. Those unions contrasted their relatively bold attack on the problem with the timidity and racism of the AFL.

The CIO unions were progressive in dealing with gender discrimination in wartime industry, which now employed many more women workers in nontraditional jobs. Unions that had represented large numbers of women workers before the war, such as the UE and the Food and Tobacco Workers, had fairly good records of fighting discrimination against women. Most union leaders saw women as temporary wartime replacements for the men in the armed forces. It was important that the wages of these women be kept high so that the veterans would get high wages.

==Civilian support for war effort==
A major government policy was to create official-sounding roles for civilians so they could have a sense of participation in the war. This was especially important for middle class citizens who did not work in munitions industries. Most of the "jobs" were artificial--such as hundreds of spotters in Illinois looking for enemy aircraft (which presumaby had been missed by the hundreds of spotters in Indiana and points East. In any case the government knew full well that no German planes had the range to approach the U.S. coastline.) The [[Civil Air Patrol]] was established, which enrolled civilian spotters in reconnaissance. Towers were built in coastal and border towns, and spotters were trained to recognize enemy aircraft, so as to report if any were seen. Blackouts were practiced in every city, even those far from the coast. All lighting had to be extinguished to avoid helping the enemy in targeting at night. The main purpose was to remind people that there was a war on and to provide activities that would engage the civil spirit of millions of people not otherwise involved in the war effort. In large part, this effort was successful, sometimes almost to a fault, such as the Plains states where many dedicated aircraft spotters took up their posts night after night watching the skies in an area of the country that no enemy aircraft of that time could possibly hope to reach.<ref>Campbell, ''Women at War with America'' (1984)</ref>
The [[United Service Organizations]], or USO, was founded in 1941 in response to a request from [[President Franklin D. Roosevelt]] to provide morale and recreation services to uniformed military personnel. This request led six civilian agencies -- the [[Salvation Army]], [[Young Men's Christian Association]], [[Young Women's Christian Association]], [[National Catholic Community Service]], National [[Travelers Aid]] Association and the [[National Jewish Welfare Board]] -- to unite in support of the troops.

==The draft==
In 1940 Congress passed the first draft legislation, which was led by Grenville Clark. It was renewed (by one vote) in summer 1941. It involved questions as who should control the draft, the size of the army, and the need for deferments. The system worked through local draft boards comprising community leaders who were given quotas and then decided how to fill them. There was very little draft resistance.<ref>Flynn, ''The Draft, 1940-1973'' (1993) </ref>

The nation went from a surplus manpower pool with high unemployment and relief in 1940 to a severe manpower shortage by 1943. Industry realized that the army urgently desired production of essential war materials and foodstuffs more than soldiers. (Large numbers of soldiers were not used until the invasion of Europe in summer 1944.) In 1940-43 the Army often transferred soldiers to civilian status in the Enlisted Reserve Corps in order to increase production. Those transferred would return to work in essential industry, although they could be called back to active duty if the army needed them. Others were discharged completely if their civilian work was deemed absolutely essential. There were instances of mass releases of men to increase production in various industries---copper, for example.

Burning issues included the drafting of fathers, which was avoided as much as possible. The drafting of 18-year olds was desired by the military but vetoed by public opinion. Blacks and Asians were drafted at the same rate as whites. The experience of World War I regarding men needed by industry was particularly unsatisfactory--too many skilled mechanics and engineers became privates. Farmers demanded and were generally given occupational deferments (many volunteered anyway--but those who stayed at home lost postwar veterans benefits.)

==Population movements==
The war saw large-scale migration to industrial centers, especially on the West Coast. Millions of wives followed their husbands to military camps. Many new military training bases were established or enlarged, especially in the South. Large numbers of African Americans left the cotton fields, headed for the cities. Housing was increasingly difficult to find in industrial centers; commuting by car was limited by gasoline rationing. People car pooled or took public transportation, which was seriously overcrowded. Trains were heavily booked, so people limited vacation and long-distance travel. also people had to recycle many things such as tin cans glass metal steel etc.

==Role of women==
Women took on an active role in World War II.<ref>Campbell, ''Women at War with America'' (1984)</ref>
===Employment===
First, women took on many paid jobs in temporary new munitions factories, and in old factories that had been converted from civilian products like automobiles. This was the "Rosie the Riveter" phenomenon.

Second, they filled many traditionally female jobs that were created by the war boom--as waitresses, for example. Third they broke into jobs that had almost always been held by men--such as bank teller or shoe salesperson. In general when they replaced men they came with fewer skills. Industry retooled its machine jobs so that unskilled workers (women and men too) could handle them. (This opened many jobs for men who had been unemployed in the 1930s). Some unions tried to maintain the same pay scale as men had because they expected men to resume their jobs after the war.

Married women continued their usual household duties of cleaning, cooking, purchasing and nursing the sick, and added the new role of full-time paid worker. After 1945 they gave up their jobs and became housewives again. Historians also debate how much of that was voluntary and how much was involuntary.

===Volunteer activities===
Women staffed millions of jobs in community service roles, such as USO and Red Cross.<ref>Campbell, ''Women at War with America'' (1984)</ref>

===Baby boom===
Marriage and motherhood came back as prosperity empowered couples who had postponed marriage. The birth rate started shooting up in 1941, paused in 1944-45 as 12 million men were in uniform, then continued to soar until reaching a peak in the late 1950s. This was the "Baby Boom."

In a New-Deal-like move, the federal government set up the "EMIC" program that provided free prenatal and natal care for the wives of servicemen below the rank of sergeant.

Housing shortages, especially in the munitions centers, forced millions of couples to live with parents or in makeshift facilities. Little housing had been built in the depression years, so the shortages grew steadily worse until about 1948, when a massive housing boom finally caught up with demand. (After 1944 much of the new housing was supported by the GI bill.)

Federal law made it difficult to divorce absent servicemen, so the number of divorces peaked when they returned in 1946. In long-range terms, the divorce rates changed little.<ref>Campbell, ''Women at War with America'' (1984)</ref>

===Housewives===
The traditional role of housewife became easier because there was so much spending money available, and harder because of rationing, shortages, cutbacks in automobile and bus service, and migration from farms and towns to munitions centers. Those housewives who worked found the dual role difficult to handle.

The worst psychological pressure came when sons, husbands, brothers and fiances were drafted and sent to faraway training camps, preparing for a war in which nobody knew how many would be killed. Millions of wives tried to relocate near their husbands' training camps.<ref>Campbell, ''Women at War with America'' (1984)</ref>

==Role of minorities==
===FEPC===
The '''[[FEPC]]''' was created by a 1941 executive order #8802 by President Roosevelt requiring companies with government contracts not to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. It assisted African Americans in obtaining jobs in industry. It said "there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin." In 1943 Roosevelt greatly strengthened FEPC with a new executive order, #9346. It required that all government contracts have a non-discrimination clause. FEPC was the most significant breakthrough ever for Blacks and women on the job front. During the war the federal government operated airfield, shipyards, supply centers, ammunition plants and other facilities that employed millions. FEPC rules applied and guaranteed equality of employment rights. Of course, these facilities shut down when the war ended. In the private sector the FEPC was generally successful in enforcing non-discrimination in the North, it did not attempt to challenge segregation in the South, and in the border region its intervention led to hate strikes by angry white workers.<ref>Garfinkel. ''When Negroes March'' (1959). </ref>

===African American: Double V campaign===
The African American community in the United States resolved on a "Double V" campaign: Victory over Fascism abroad, and victory over discrimination at home. Large numbers migrated from poor Southern farms to munitions centers. Racial tensions were high in overcrowded cities like Chicago; Detroit and Harlem experienced race riots in 1943.<ref>Wynn. ''The Afro-American and the Second World War'' (1977) </ref>

===Internment of Japanese Americans===
[[Image:Japaneseinternment.jpg|right|thumb|An internment camp in California]]
In 1942 the War Department demanded that all enemy nationals be removed from war zones on the West Coast. The question became how to evacuate the estimated 120,000 people of Japanese citizenship living in California. Roosevelt looked at the secret evidence available to him:<ref>Keith Robar, ''Intelligence, Internment & Relocation: Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066: How Top Secret "MAGIC" Intelligence Led to Evacuation'' (2000) </ref> the Japanese in the Philippines had collaborated with the Japanese invasion troops; most of the adult Japanese in California had been strong supporters of Japan in the war against China. There was evidence of espionage compiled by code-breakers that decrypted messages to Japan from agents in North America and Hawaii before and after [[Pearl Harbor]]. On February 19, 1942 Roosevelt issued Executive Order #9066 which set up designated military areas "from which any or all persons may be excluded." The most controversial part of the order included American born children and youth who had dual U.S, and Japanese citizenship. In February 1943, when activating the 442nd Regimental Combat Team --a unit composed of U.S.-born American citizens of Japanese descent living in Hawaii, Roosevelt said, "No loyal citizen of the United States should be denied the democratic right to exercise the responsibilities of his citizenship, regardless of his ancestry. The principle on which this country was founded and by which it has always been governed is that Americanism is a matter of the mind and heart; Americanism is not, and never was, a matter of race or ancestry." In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the executive order in the ''Korematsu v. United States'' case. The executive order remained in force until December when Roosevelt released the Japanese internees, except for those who announced their intention to return to Japan.

Italy was now an official enemy and citizens of Italy were also forced away from "strategic" coastal areas in California. All together 58,000 Italian citizens were forced to relocate. They relocated on their own and were not put in camps. Known spokesmen for Mussolini were arrested and held in prison. The restrictions were dropped in October 1942, and Italy switched sides in 1943 and became an American ally.

==Wartime politics==
Roosevelt easily won the bitterly contested 1940 election, but the [[Conservative coalition]] maintained a tight grip on Congress. In very light turnout in 1942 the Republicans made major gains. In the 1944 election Roosevelt defeated [[Tom Dewey]] in a close race that attracted little attention. [[Wendell Willkie]], the defeated GOP candidate in 1940, became a roving ambassador for Roosevelt. Vice President [[Henry C. Wallace]] proved a poor administrator and after a series of squabbles Roosevelt stripped him of his administrative responsibilities and dropped him from the 1944 ticket, choosing instead Senator [[Harry S. Truman]]. Truman was best known for investigating waste, fraud and inefficiency in civilian programs.<ref>Brinkley, ''Washington Goes to War '' (1988)</ref>

==Propaganda and culture==

The media cooperated with the federal government in presenting the official view of the war. All movie scripts had to be pre-approved, but there was no direct censorship of radio, newspapers or magazines.<ref> Fox, ''Madison Avenue Goes to War'' (1975) </ref> World War II posters helped to mobilize a nation. Inexpensive, accessible, and ever-present, the poster was an ideal agent for making war aims the personal mission of every citizen. Government agencies, businesses, and private organizations issued an array of poster images linking the military front with the home front--calling upon every American to boost production at work and at home. Deriving their appearance from the fine and commercial arts, posters conveyed more than simple slogans. Posters expressed the needs and goals of the people who created them. By definition, wartime posters are naturally propagandistic, but most WW II posters were merely patriotically so. Some, however, resorted to gross racial and ethnic caricitures of the enemy, sometimes as hopelessly bumbling cartoon characters, sometimes as evil, half-human creatures.

One of the most noteworthy areas of civilian involvement during the war was in the area of recycling. Many everyday commodities were vital to the war effort, and drives were organized to recycle such things as rubber, tin, waste kitchen fats (the predominant raw material of explosives and many pharmaceuticals) paper, lumber, steel and many others. A popular phrase promoted by the government at the time was "Get some cash for your trash" (a nominal sum was paid to the donor for many kinds of scrap items) and "Fats" Waller recorded a song by the same title. Such commodities as rubber and tin remained highly important as recycled materials until the end of the war, while others, such as steel, were critically needed at first, but in lesser quantities as damaged war materials were returned from overseas for scrapping, lessening the need for civilian scrap metal drives. Once again, war propaganda played a prominent role in many of these drives.

A strong area of American culture even then was a fascination with celebrities, and many stars of Hollywood and radio gave service above and beyond the call in the donation of their time for everything from being Civilian Defense marshalls to making personal appearances at War Bond drives. Bonds were the money that financed the war, and Bond drives where celebrities appeared were always very successful. Several stars were responsible for personal appearance tours that netted multiple millions of dollars in bond pledges - an astonishing amount in 1943. The public paid roughly 2/3 of the face value of a war bond, and received the full face value back after a set number of years. While this may have represented a rather unspectacular interest rate, the government has never defaulted on payment of a single mature bond. People were challenged again and again to put "at least 10% of every paycheck into Bonds". Compliance was very high, with entire factories of workers earning a special flag to fly over their plant if all workers belonged to the "Ten Percent Club". There were seven major War Loan drives, all of which exceeded their goals. An added advantage was that citizens who were putting their money into War Bonds were not putting it into the home front wartime economy. There was a job for anyone who wanted one during the war, most of them well-paid. Personal income was at an all-time high, and more and more dollars were chasing fewer and fewer goods to purchase. This was a recipe for economic disaster that was largely avoided because Americans - cajoled daily by their government to do so - were also saving money at an all-time high rate, mostly in War Bonds, but also in private savings accounts and insurance policies.
==See also==
* [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], president
* [[Harry S. Truman]], important senator and president
* [[New Deal]], for previous years
* [[World War II Homefront]], for other countries
* [[World War II]], for military and diplomatic history

==Bibliography==
see also [[New Deal Bibliography]]

===Primary sources===
* Cantril, Hadley and Mildred Strunk, eds.; ''Public Opinion, 1935-1946'' (1951), massive compilation of many public opinion polls from USA [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98754501 online edition]
* Gallup, George Horace, ed. ''The Gallup Poll; Public Opinion, 1935-1971'' 3 vol (1972) esp vol 1. summarizes results of each poll as reported to newspapers
* U.S. Bureau of the Census. ''Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1946'' (1947) [http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1946-01.pdf online]

===Surveys===
* Adams, Michael C.C. ''The Best War Ever: America and World War II'' (1993); contains detailed bibliography
* Blum, John Morton ''V Was for Victory: Politics and American Culture During World War II'' (1995; original edition (1976)
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945.'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Polenberg, Richard. ''War and Society: The United States, 1941-1945'' (1980)
* Resch, John Phillips et al eds. ''Americans at War: Society, Culture, and the Homefront'' vol 3 (2005), an encyclopedia
* Winkler, Allan M. ''Home Front U.S.A.: America During World War II'' (1986). short survey
* ''10 Eventful Years: 1937-1946'' 4 vol. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1947. Highly detailed encyclopedia of events

===Economy and labor===
* Aruga, Natsuki. "'An' Finish School': Child Labor during World War II." ''Labor History'' 29 (1988): 498-530. [http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a769906872~db=all online]
*Campbell, D'Ann. "Sisterhood versus the Brotherhoods: Women in Unions" in Campbell, ''Women at War With America: Private Lives in a Patriotic Era'' (1984).
*Dubofsky, Melvyn and Warren Van Time ''John L. Lewis'' (1986). Biography of head of coal miners' union
* Evans Paul. "The Effects of General Price Controls in the United States during World War II." ''Journal of Political Economy'' 90 (1983): 944-66. statistical in JSTOR
*Faue, Elizabeth. ''Community of Suffering & Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915-1945'' (1991), social history [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=33744325 online edition]
* Feagin, Joe R., and Kelly Riddell. "The State, Capitalism and World War II: The U.S. Case." ''Armed Forces and Society'' 17 (fall 1990): 53-79. [[http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/1/53 abstract online]
* Ferguson, Robert G. "One Thousand Planes a Day: Ford, Grumman, General Motors and the Arsenal of Democracy." ''History and Technology'' 2005 21(2): 149-175. ISSN 0734-1512 Fulltext in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* George Q. Flynn; ''The Mess in Washington: Manpower Mobilization in World War II'' Greenwood Press. 1979. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15339454 online edition]*Fraser, Steve. ''Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor'' (1993). leader of CIO
* Harrison, Mark. "Resource Mobilization for World War II: The U.S.A., UK, U.S.S.R. and Germany, 1938-1945." ''Economic History Review'' 41 (1988): 171-92. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117(198805)2:41:2%3C171:RMFWWI%3E2.0.CO;2-7 in JSTOR]
* Koistinen, Paul A. C. ''Arsenal of World War II: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1940-1945'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Arsenal-World-War-Political-1940%C2%BF1945/dp/0700613080/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195121379&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Lichtenstein, Nelson. ''Labor's War at Home: The CIO in World War II'' (2003)
*Miller, Sally M., and Daniel A. Cornford eds. ''American Labor in the Era of World War II'' (1995), essays by historians, mostly on California [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15166874 online edition]
* Maines, Rachel. "Wartime Allocation of Textiles and Apparel Resources: Emergency Policy in the Twentieth Century." ''Public Historian'' 7 (1985): 29-51.
* Mills, Geofrey, and Hugh Rockoff. "Compliance with Price Controls in the United States and the United Kingdom during World War II." ''Journal of Economic History'' 47 (1987): 197-213. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507(198703)47%3A1%3C197%3ACWPCIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L in JSTOR]
* Reagan, Patrick D. "The Withholding Tax, Beardsley Ruml, and Modern American Public Policy." ''Prologue'' 24 (1992): 19-31.
* Rockoff, Hugh. "The Response of the Giant Corporations to Wage and Price Controls in World War II." ''Journal of Economic History'' 41 (1981): 123-28. in JSTOR
* Romer, Christina D. "What Ended the Great Depression?" ''Journal of Economic History'' 52 (1992): 757-84. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507(199212)52:4%3C757:WETGD%3E2.0.CO;2-K in JSTOR]
* Tuttle, William M., Jr. "The Birth of an Industry: The Synthetic Rubber 'Mess' in World War II." ''Technology and Culture'' 22 (1981): 35-67. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0040-165X(198101)22%3A1%3C35%3ATBOAIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F in JSTOR]
* Vatter, Harold G. ''The U.S. Economy in World War II'' (1985) [http://www.questia.com/read/72528987 online edition]
* Wilcox, Walter W. ''The farmer in the second world war'' (1947) [http://chla.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=chla;idno=2944025 online edition]
* Yenne, Bill. ''The American Aircraft Factory in World War II.'' (St. Paul: Zenith, 2006. 192 pp. isbn 978-0-7603-2300-7.) Heavily illustrated.

===The draft===
* Blackstone, Robert C. "Democracy's Army: The American People and Selective Service in World War II." PhD dissertation : U. of Kansas 2005. 296 pp. DAI 2006 66(11): 4152-4153-A. DA3196030 online at [[ProQuest Dissertations & Theses]]
* Blum, Albert A. ''Drafted Or Deferred: Practices Past and Present'' Ann Arbor: Bureau of Industrial Relations, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, 1967.
* Dechter, Aimée R., and Glen H. Elder, Jr. "World War II Mobilization in Men's Work Lives: Continuity or Disruption for the Middle Class?" ''American Journal of Sociology,'' volume 110 (2004), pages 761–793 [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/422662&erFrom=3454984873670301622Guest online]
* Flynn George Q. "American Medicine and Selective Service in World War II." ''Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences'' 42 (1987): 305-26.
* Flynn George Q. ''The Draft, 1940-1973'' (1993) (ISBN 0-7006-1105-3)

===Gender and minorities===
* Bailey, Beth, and David Farber; "The 'Double-V' Campaign in World War II Hawaii: African Americans, Racial Ideology, and Federal Power, " ''Journal of Social History'' Volume: 26. Issue: 4. 1993. pp 817+. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/3788782 in JSTOR]
* Campbell, D'Ann. ''Women at War with America: Private Lives in a Patriotic Era'' (1984)
* Dalfiume, Richard M. "The 'Forgotten Years'" of the Negro Revolution," ''Journal of American History,'' 55#1 (June 1968), 90-106. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1894253 in JSTOR]
* Daniel, Clete. ''Chicano Workers and the Politics of Fairness: The FEPC in the Southwest, 1941-1945'' University of Texas Press, 1991
* Collins, William J. "Race, Roosevelt, and Wartime Production: Fair Employment in World War II Labor Markets," ''American Economic Review'' 91:1 (March 2001), pp. 272-286. in JSTOR
* Costello, John. ''Virtue Under Fire: How World War II Changed Our Social and Sexual Attitudes'' (1986), US and Britain
* Dower, John W. et al. eds. ''Wearing Propaganda: Textiles on the Home Front in Japan, Britain, and the United States, 1931–1945.'' (2006) 376 pp.; 400 color illustrations
* Garfinkel, Herbert. ''When Negroes March: The March on Washington and the Organizational Politics for FEPC'' (1959).
* Hartmann, Susan M. ''Home Front and Beyond: American Women in the 40's'' (1982)
* Kryder, Daniel.''Divided Arsenal: Race and the American State During World War II'' (2001)
* Lees, Lorraine M. "National Security and Ethnicity: Contrasting Views during World War II." ''Diplomatic History'' 11 (1987): 113-25.
* Gunnar Myrdal, ''An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy'' (1944)
* [http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/guides/womens_studies/womlab.asp ''Records of the Women's Bureau'' (1997), short essay on women at work]
* Ward, Barbara McLean ed. ''Produce and Conserve, Share and Play Square: The Grocer and the Consumer on the Home-Front Battlefield during World War II'', Portsmouth, NH: Strawbery Banke Museum
* Wynn, Neil A. ''The Afro-American and the Second World War'' (1993) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91266754 online edition]

===Politics and Washington===
* Brinkley, David. ''Washington Goes to War'' (1988).
* Burns, James MacGregor. ''Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom 1940-1945'' (1970), vol. 2: [http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-1940-1945-James-MacGregor-Burns/dp/0156027577/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193881949&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]; major interpretive scholarly biography, emphasis on politics; vol 2 is on war years and is [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Freidel, Frank. ''Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny'' (1990), One-volume scholarly biography; covers entire life [http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-D-Roosevelt-Rendezvous-Destiny/dp/094570738X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193881894&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search 2006 reprint edition]
* Goodwin, Doris Kearns. ''No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II'' (1995), joint biography by scholar [http://www.amazon.com/No-Ordinary-Time-Franklin-Roosevelt/dp/B000B86FI2/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193883493&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Graham, Otis L. and Meghan Robinson Wander, eds. ''Franklin D. Roosevelt: His Life and Times.'' (1985). encyclopedia
* Hooks Gregory. ''The Military Industrial Complex: World War II's Battle of the Potomac'' (1991).
* Jeffries John W. "The 'New' New Deal: FDR and American Liberalism, 1937-1945." ''Political Science Quarterly'' (1990): 397-418. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2150824 in JSTOR]
* Leff Mark H. "The Politics of Sacrifice on the American Home Front in World War II." ''Journal of American History'' 77 (1991): 1296-1318. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2078263 in JSTOR]
* Rhodes Richard. ''The Making of the Atomic Bomb'' (1986).
* Steele Richard W. "The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War, 1940-1941." ''Journal of American History'' 71 (1994): 69-92. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1899834 in JSTOR]

===Propaganda, advertising, media, public opinion===
* Bentley, Amy. ''Eating for Victory: Food Rationing and the Politics of Domesticity.'' (1998). 238pp
* Bredhoff, Stacey. ''Powers of Persuasion: Poster Art from World War II,'' (1994)
* Cantril, Hadley, and Mildred Strunk, eds. ''Public Opinion: 1935-1946'' (1951), massive compilation of polling data; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98754501 online edition]
* Fox, Frank W. ''Madison Avenue Goes to War: The Strange Military Career of American Advertising, 1941-45,'' (1975)
* Fyne, Robert ''The Hollywood Propaganda of World War II,'' (1994),
* Gregory, G.H. ''Posters of World War II,'' (1993)
* Gallup, George H. ''The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935- 1971, Vol. 1, 1935-1948,'' (1972), short summary of every poll
* M. Paul Holsinger and Mary Anne Schofield; ''Visions of War: World War II in Popular Literature and Culture'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101927590 online edition]
* Jones, John Bush. ''The Songs That Fought the War: Popular Music and the Home Front, 1939–1945.'' (2006) isbn 978-1-58465-443-8
* Steele Richard W. "The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War, 1940-1941." ''Journal of American History'' 71 (1994): 69-92. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1899834 in JSTOR]
* Witkowski, Terrence H. "World War II Poster Campaigns: Preaching Frugality to American Consumers" ''Journal of Advertising'', Vol. 32, 2003

===Social, state and local history===
* Brown DeSoto. ''Hawaii Goes to War. Life in Hawaii from Pearl Harbor to Peace.'' 1989.
* Clive Alan. ''State of War: Michigan in World War II'' University of Michigan Press, 1979.
* Daniel Pete. "Going among Strangers: Southern Reactions to World War II." ''Journal of American History'' 77 (1990): 886-911.
* Gleason Philip. "Pluralism, Democracy, and Catholicism in the Era of World War II." ''Review of Politics'' 49 (1987): 208-30.
* Hartzel, Karl Drew. ''The Empire State At War'' (1949), on upstate New York [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=73981944 online edition]
* Johnson Marliynn S. "War as Watershed: The East Bay and World War II." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 63 (1994): 315-41.
* T. A Larson. ''Wyoming's war years, 1941-1945'' (1993)
* Lichtenstein Nelson. "The Making of the Postwar Working Class: Cultural Pluralism and Social Structure in World War II." ''Historian'' 51 (1988): 42-63.
* Lee James Ward, Carolyn N. Barnes, and Kent A. Bowman, eds. ''1941: Texas Goes to War'' University of North Texas Press, 1991.
* Miller Marc. ''The Irony of Victory. World War II and Lowell, Massachusetts'' University of Illinois Press, 1988.
* Nash Gerald D. ''The American West Transformed. The Impact of the Second World War'' Indiana University Press, 1985.
* Smith C. Calvin. ''War and Wartime Changes: The Transformation of Arkansas, 1940-1945'' University of Arkansas Press, 1986.
* Tuttle Jr. William M.; ''Daddy's Gone to War: The Second World War in the Lives of America's Children'' Oxford University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=83781460 online edition]
* O'Brien, Kenneth Paul and Lynn Hudson Parsons, eds. ''The Home-Front War: World War II and American Society'' [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=16165781 (1995) online] essays by scholars
* Watters, Mary. ''Illinois in the Second World War.'' 2 vol (1951)

==External links==
* [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data.php Academic Data Related to the Roosevelt Administration]
* [http://www.nisk.k12.ny.us/fdr/ FDR Cartoon Archive]
* [http://www.caphistory.org/museum_exh_1.html National Museum of the Civil Air Patrol (online, WWII section)]
* [http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/powers_of_persuasion_intro.html Powers of Persuasion: Poster Art from World War II, National Archives]
* [http://www.library.northwestern.edu/govpub/collections/wwii-posters/index.html Northwestern U Library World War II Poster Collection]
* [http://www.genealogytoday.com/guide/war-ration-books.html War Ration Book Records and Related Information]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:World War II]]
[[category:New Deal]]

Rationing

2011-11-24T02:56:28Z

CamilleT: /* United States */ there does not appear to be such an image on this wiki

'''Rationing''' is limiting the purchase or use of a good. Typically this term refers to rationing by the [[government]] when its policies result in a [[supply]] less than [[demand]]. The alternative is to let the market system adjust, which will result in very high prices for common goods, generating severe discontent and even starvation.

One form of rationing is price controls, whereby the government limits the price that can be charged for a good.

More common is coupon rationing. each person is given coupons for goods--usually on an equalitarian basis. To purchase an itrem a consumer must have both money and coupons--and the store has to have the goods. A third method is to restrict supply of materials and labor to the manufacturer. This allows special priority to be given to munitions and essential war supplies.

A '''black market''' transaction is the illegal sale of rationed goods, without coupons. A '''gray markey''' transaction is the buying and selling (or trading) of coupons. In wartime governments usually tolerate gray markets and crack down hard on black markets.

Rationing during wartime is common in many countries, including the United States in [[World War II]] (but not in other American wars.

==World War II==
Rationing and related controls since 1914 have been accompanied by intensive propaganda campaigns sponsored by the government.<ref> Frank W. Fox, ''Madison Avenue Goes to War: The Strange Military Career of American Advertising, 1941-45,'' (1975)</ref>

===Australia===
* see also [[John Curtin]]
* [[History of Australia]]

Essential goods requiring coupons were clothing, shoes, butter, tea, sugar, gasoline, and (from January 1944) meat. Clothing and footwear were rationed in June 1942, imposing a cut of about 40% on normal purchases for men and 33% for women, and 20% for children over five. Tea was rationed at 2 ozs. a week, sugar 1 lb. a week, butter 8 ozs. a week. Rationed at the wholesale level were cigarettes, and tobacco, supplies of which have been cut 30%; beer and spirits, cut one-third. Automobile tires were tightly controlled and available only to essential users.

Canberra exerted strict controls on civilian investment. The Capital Issues Board had to approve whenever a business wanted to raise capital; it had to be necessary for wartime. Normal housing construction was ended except for war workers. To prevent excessive speculation, share prices on stock exchanges were given upper and lower limits. Similar control was exercised over dealings in houses and land.

Wages were pegged at the general level as of February 1942. Wages were not frozen, for they could be raised in terms of the rising cost of living. The Manpower Directorate, regulated the supply of labor for every activity, diverting it from less essential to more essential uses, and so decreasing or increasing production as war needs required.

===United States===
Civilian consumption increased 22% during the war, though there were many shortages in critical areas. Production stopped on many civilian items, such as automobiles, new houses, and new appliances. Many commodities, such as meat, sugar, butter, coffee, gasoline, tires, shoes and clothing were rationed. Local schools set up stations where people could get their ration coupons (with teachers handling the paperwork.) Each person (regardless of age) received the same food and clothing coupons. To purchase an item three things were needed: the storekeeper had to have the item in the first place, the purchaser had to have the cash, and had to have the coupons. Most automobile drivers received coupons for 3 gallons a week; those who could document special needs received extra gasoline coupons. (There was plenty of gasoline; the rationing was an efficient way to ration automobile tires, with rubber in very short supply.) Bread, milk and beer were not rationed. People eating in restaurants had to pay with cash and ration coupons. Rationing was generally supported by the civilian population, although there was some [[black market]] activity, that is, purchase of an item without the coupons. The government hunted down and prosecuted black marketeers. There was much "gray market" activity--that is family and neighbors selling or trading ration coupons; that was technically illegal but rarely prosecuted.

The main result was a striking egalitarianism of consumption, especially regarding food. Rationing was needed due to the needs of the men and women serving overseas. The commodities mentioned above were a very important key to the success of the US war effort. Also, rationing was also needed due to the limited shipping capabilities during the war. Many cargo ships were converted from public use to military use to aid in the war effort.

Bentley (1998) argues that wartime food rationing encouraged planners, consumers, and producers alike to focus on the communitarian dimensions of the American war effort. Rationing drew women into the national wartime effort, but the result was "simultaneously to elevate women's status and to maintain gender hierarchies." The [[Office of Price Administration]] instituted food rationing to combat high inflation while ensuring equitable distribution of scarce resources; from the start, it saw women as essential collaborators in a new, and democratic, practice. Rationing mobilized women as "wartime homemakers," especially as consumers who faced the challenge of providing meals while restricting sugar and meat consumption. (Ironically, although women worked in them, too, victory gardens and food production were more often viewed as men's work.) Women's work as food preparers also held the power to remind Americans daily of what the nation was collectively fighting for ("Freedom from want").<ref> Amy Bentley, ''Eating for Victory: Food Rationing and the Politics of Domesticity.'' (1998)</ref>

==see also==
* [[American Homefront, World War II]]
====references====
<references/>
[[Category:World War II]]

[[category:economics]]

Talk:Brandon McInerney

2011-11-23T02:47:25Z

CamilleT: /* Discussion is welcome here */

== Discussion is welcome here ==
Sexual harassment does not warrant murder. King was in the wrong to pursue students in such a manner, but let's not pretend McInerney is the victim here--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:34, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:McInerney was falsely accused of a hate crime, and it looks like his trial (which he won a hung jury at) did not even hear all the evidence in his favor. You're right that sexual harassment does not warrant murder, but no one claims it would.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::I think the jury was hung on the hate crime thing, not the actual crime. Regardless, I think that in the end justice has been served. McInerney is going to prison for murder.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:47, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Brandon McInerney

2011-11-23T02:34:16Z

CamilleT: /* Discussion is welcome here */

Conservative

2011-11-23T00:38:52Z

CamilleT: Undo revision 939647 by HAwzum (talk) rvv

{|align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}
A '''conservative''' is someone who adheres to principles of personal [[responsibility]], moral values, and [[limited government]], agreeing with [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "[[religion]] and [[morality]] are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref><ref>[[Merriam-Webster]]'s Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the morally sound doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

Former President [[Ronald Reagan]] said, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html</ref>
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]

The ''sine qua non'' of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of [[economics]] and the morality of the [[Bible]] for the benefit of all, recognizing that the Bible is the most [[logic]]al book ever written. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* [[Limited government]] and balanced budgets
* [[Capitalism]] and [[free market|free markets]]
* [[Classroom prayer]]
* Prohibition of [[abortion]] and respect for human life
* [[Abstinence]] education
* Traditional [[marriage]], not [[same-sex marriage]]
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against [[pornography]]
* The [[Second Amendment]] right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* The [[death penalty]]
* Parental control of education ([[parental rights]])
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No [[world government]]
* Enforcement of current laws regarding [[immigration]]
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of [[junk science]] such as [[evolution]] and [[global warming]]
* Minimal Taxation
* [[Federalism]] (Separation of powers among the National, State and Local governments)
* Favoring [[states' rights]] over federal power, while accepting the Constitutional role of the federal government
* A strong national defense
* An [[Originalism|Originalist]] interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]

__TOC__ 
==Hall of Fame==
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter<ref> Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," ''American Heritage'' 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> names [[Alexander Hamilton]], [[John Adams]], [[John Marshall]], [[Daniel Webster]], [[John C. Calhoun]], [[Elihu Root]], and [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to the "Conservative's Hall of Fame,"'' with John Adams as the greatest of American conservatives.

===Presidents===
Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. The most prominent conservative presidents include:
*[[George Washington]] (1789-1797)
*[[James Monroe]] (1817-1825)
*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
*[[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes, Supreme Court nominations, and national security)

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

*The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
*The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)

===Movement===
[[Movement conservatives]] are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite [[liberal]] ridicule. Movement conservative activists include:
*[[Phyllis Schlafly]], opposed [[ERA]]
*[[Larry McDonald]], Congressman, on board [[KAL 007]] when shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]].
*[[Jesse Helms]], Senator, specialist in foreign policy
*[[Pat Buchanan]], TV commentator
*[[Jerry Falwell]], religion
*[[Michele Bachmann]], congresswoman
*[[Ann Coulter]], columnist
*[[Rush Limbaugh]], radio
*[[Michelle Malkin]], commentator
*[[Glenn Beck]], TV commentator

===Key leaders===
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat [[Lyndon Johnson]] but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - British prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held views similar to Reagan's
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] [[economist]], influential during Reagan administration; leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]

==US Voters==
In America, most conservatives support the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for [[John McCain]] and 20% for [[Barack Hussein Obama]], with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>
[[File:Conservative-republican-brain.jpg|thumb|350px]]
===Religious differences between political conservatives and political liberals===
The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as “mostly conservative” on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves “mostly liberal” on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.<ref> See [http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/258-survey-shows-how-liberals-and-conservatives-differ-on-matters-of-faith on line results] </ref>

Some findings:
Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that [[Satan]] is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
*their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
*a person cannot earn their way into [[Heaven]] by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
*their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
*the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
*their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
*read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
*attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
*[[pray]] to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
*share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
*have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)

*2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were [[atheist]] or [[agnostic]]
*15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were [[Evangelical Christians|Christian evangelicals]]
*conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as [[born again]], based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
*21% of conservatives were associated with the [[Roman Catholic Church]], compared to 30% among the liberals.

== Barack Obama and American Conservatism Backlash ==
In October of 2009, Niles Gardiner reported in the [[Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'':
{{cquote|This week’s striking [[Gallup]] poll on political ideology is further confirmation that the United States is in essence a conservative nation, which has ironically become even more conservative under [[Barack Obama]]. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36 percent as moderate and 20 percent as liberal. This is the first time conservatives have outnumbered moderates in America since 2004.<ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100014891/barack-obama-has-failed-to-defeat-conservatism-in-america/</ref>}}

== Conservative news organizations ==
:''See also: [[Conservative news organizations]] and [[Conservative media]]''
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsMax]]. [[Fox News]], though often called conservative, tends to be more [[neoconservative]] than [[conservative]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
:''See also: [[Conservative media]]''
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of [[limited government]].
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# [[Patriotism]], [[nationalism]], and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of [[marriage]].
# Emphasis on social values, like [[prayer]] and [[pro-life]] principles.

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support [[Big government|bigger government]] and [[globalism]], and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on social issues and American sovereignty, and are suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean against foreign interventionalism. Neoconservatives criticize this with the pejorative term of "[[isolationism]]," as they believe in promoting [[democracy]] worldwide, even where different religious or value systems are incompatible with democracy-induced changes in control.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the [[Soviet Union|Soviets]] near [[Moneron Island]] in 1983.

==Fiscal Conservatism vs. Social Conservatism==

''For further details on the two related philosophies, see [[Fiscal conservatism]] and [[Social conservatism]]''

Recently, a division has been created between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism centers around a low and [[Balanced budget|balanced]] government [[budget]], and generally is opposed to programs such as [[Social Security]] and [[Medicare]]. Its primary goal is to reduce government spending significantly. Social Conservatism, on the other hand, focuses on the moral issues of conservatism. A social conservative will oppose [[same-sex marriage]], [[abortion]], and the teaching of [[evolution]] in schools. The majority of Conservatives (including most of the [[Republican Party]]) fall into both categories, however some fall into one or the other, but not both. Notably, [[Libertarians]] are strong fiscal conservatives but are not socially conservative. For instance, the [[Libertarian Party]] Platform <ref>[http://www.lp.org/platform]</ref> expresses support for the fiscally conservative principles of ending publicly funded [[welfare]] and [[healthcare]] programs as well as reducing government spending overall significantly. However, it also expresses support for [[same-sex marriage]] (with some libertarians leaning towards the ultimate goal of total [[marriage privatization]]) as well as maintaining the legal status of abortion.

Some Republicans and [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] also fit one category but not the other. Former [[New Mexico]] governor [[Gary Johnson]], who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, was deemed "the most fiscally conservative governor" while he was in office (and probably earned that honor given all the spending cuts he made) but at the same time, he supports [[marriage privatization]] and [[abortion]] (though he believes ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' should be overturned on Constitutional grounds). Also, several Democrats have expressed opposition to same-sex marriage and/or abortion, but still support liberal fiscal programs such as Social Security. They would be the opposite of Johnson - socially conservative but fiscally liberal.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.
==History of American conservatism==
===Textbook problems===
:''See also: [[Textbook bias]]''
College-level teaching about conservatism has been distorted by a "liberal state paradigm"--that is, [[textbook]]s usually interpret recent American history in terms of the origins and successes of political liberalism--especially the [[New Deal]], the [[welfare state]], [[labor union]]s, and [[Civil Rights Movement|Civil Rights]] for blacks and [[equality]] for women. Conservative politics is usually defined as a reaction: as a [[free market]] reply to the growth of [[big government]]; as an expression of outrage against declining support for tradition and Christian morality. Where the violent Wobblies ([[Industrial Workers of the World|IWW]]) and illegal sit down strikes of the 1930s are seen as heroic, exposing [[Communist]] subversion by [[Joe McCarthy]] is denounced as the nadir of political morality.<ref> See Leonard Moore, "Approaching Conservatism," ''OAH Magazine of History,'' 17 (January 2003) [http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/moore.html online edition]</ref>

===Loyalists===
The [[Loyalists]] of the [[American Revolution]] were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer [[Joseph Galloway]] and governor-historian [[Thomas Hutchinson]]. However when the crisis came, they stood with the Crown as it tried to destroy American political liberties. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. [[Samuel Seabury]] was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the [[Episcopal]] religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. While the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S., it survives in Canadian conservatism.

===Founding Fathers===
The [[Founding Fathers]] created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as [[Republicanism]], which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[James Madison]] (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the [[First Party System]] (1790s-1820s) the [[Federalist Party]], led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting [[monarchy]] and [[aristocracy]], they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. [[George Washington]] was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and his followers, especially [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] and his "Old Republicans" or "[[Quids]]." They idealized the [[yeoman]] farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to [[corruption]], that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "[[judicial activism]]".
<ref>[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm]</ref> The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

===Ante-Bellum: Calhoun and Webster===
During the [[Second Party System]] (1830-54) the [[Whig Party]] attracted most conservatives, such as [[Daniel Webster]] of New England. [[Daniel Webster]] and other leaders of the [[Whig Party]], called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.<ref>The word was originally used in the [[French Revolution]]. The British used it after 1839 to describe a major party. The first American usage is by Whigs who called themselves "Conservatives" in the late 1830s. Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, ''American Political terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) 94-97.</ref> [[John C. Calhoun]], a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. [[Richard Hofstadter]] (1948) called him "The [[Karl Marx|Marx]] of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by [[Edmund Burke]], the founder of British conservatism, in ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'' (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with [[Civil Rights]].

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus [[William J. Bennett]] (2006), a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, [[Know-Nothings]], [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] and 20th century [[isolationist]]s.

===Lincoln to Cleveland===
Since 1865 the [[Republican Party]] has identified itself with President [[Abraham Lincoln]], who was the ideological heir of the [[Whig Party|Whigs]] and of both [[Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson]] and [[Alexander Hamilton|Hamilton]]. As the [[Gettysburg Address]] shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's [[Declaration of Independence|Declaration]]. The [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] reflected a [[reactionary]] opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the [[Bourbon Democrat]]s, led by President [[Grover Cleveland]], preached against corruption, high taxes (protective [[tariff]]s), and [[imperialism]], and supported the [[gold standard]] and business interests. They were overthrown by [[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the [[Democratic Party]] permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican [[William McKinley]] won using the pro-business slogan "[[sound money]] and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

[[William Graham Sumner]], [[Yale University|Yale]] professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with [[Social Darwinism]] under the influence of [[Herbert Spencer]], he rejected [[evolution]] in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and [[paternalism]] in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.<ref>Curtis, Bruce. "William Graham Sumner 'On the Concentration of Wealth.'" Journal of American History 1969 55(4): 823-832.</ref>

===Early 20th century===
In the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] of [[Rhode Island]] were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the [[Federal Reserve System]] in 1913. [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a liberal he took a tough [[Regulation|regulatory]] approach toward businesses and [[trust]]s, and (post-presidency) fought for social insurance for the elderly. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into [[World War I]] to stop what he saw as the [[German Empire|German]] attacks on civilization. [[William Howard Taft]] promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President [[Warren G. Harding]]. The presidency of [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes ''Democracy and Leadership'' (1924) by Irving Babbitt and [[H.L. Mencken]]'s magazine ''American Mercury'' (1924-33). The [[Efficiency Movement]] attracted many conservatives such as [[Herbert Hoover]] with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the [[Great Depression]], other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high [[property tax]]es. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in [[Chicago]] which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself [[Southern Agrarians]] and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American [[Republicanism]] and civic virtue.

The Depression brought [[liberal]]s to power under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the [[New Deal]] and Roosevelt's powerful [[New Deal Coalition]]. In 1934 [[Al Smith]] and pro-business Democrats formed the [[American Liberty League]] to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal [[Alf Landon]], who carried only [[Maine]] and [[Vermont]]. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal [[Conservative Coalition]] of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator [[Robert Taft]], a Republican of [[Ohio]], and Senator [[Richard Russell]], Democrat of [[Georgia]].
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats]]

In the United States, the [[Old Right]], also called the Old Guard, was a group of [[libertarianism|libertarian]], free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were [[isolationist]]s in 1939-41, (see [[America First]]), and later opposed [[NATO]] and U.S. military intervention in the [[Korean War]].

===Later 20th century: Goldwater, Buckley, the Dixiecrats===
By 1950, [[American liberalism]] was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic [[Lionel Trilling]] could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." <ref>Lapham 2004</ref> But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like [[Russell Kirk]]'s ''The Conservative Mind'' (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine ''[[National Review]]'', founded by [[William F. Buckley]] in 1955.

Whereas Taft's [[Old Right]] had been [[isolationist]] the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose [[communism]]. It looked to the [[Founding Fathers]] for historical inspiration as opposed to [[John C. Calhoun|Calhoun]] and the antebellum South.

The success of the [[Civil Rights movement]] came in the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] and the [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but [[Barry Goldwater]] opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the [[Barack Hussein Obama|Obama]] campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying [[Florida]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all [[New Deal]] programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of [[Ronald Reagan]] in [[California]], and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for [[Richard Nixon]] in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion [[Hubert Humphrey]], and southern demagogue [[George Wallace]]. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the [[Northeast]] who supported many New Deal programs).

===Nixon, Reagan, and Bush===

The Republican administrations of President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[1970s]] were characterized more by their emphasis on ''[[realpolitik]]'', [[détente]], and economic policies such as [[wage and price controls]], than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and [[conservative principles]] dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with [[supply side economics]] as well as a strict opposition to [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] [[Communism]]. Reagan promised to cut [[welfare]] spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised [[military spending]] and created large [[federal deficit]]s that turned out working to our advantage, because at that time, deficits didn't matter. It should be known that the Republicans also [[Balanced budget|balanced]] the [[budget]] in the late 1990s.

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "[[Reaganomics]]," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

==Reactions to Obama==
"Forty percent of Americans now self-identify as conservatives — double the amount of self-professed liberals — largely because independents are beginning to take sides." [http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/winter11/spalding.html]

Compare [[Progressive liberalism]].

==Conservatives in Australia==

Australia was once more conservative than England but sweeping [[gun control]] laws pushed the nation leftward toward greater dependency on government in the last decade. In 2009, opposition to government control based on alleged [[global warming]] galvanized conservatives there and they led the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] to a repudiation of an emissions trading scheme.<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/national/shock-result-as-abbott-wins-liberal-leadership-by-one-vote--ets-dead-20091201-k1uz.html</ref> Conservatives also support smaller political parties such as the [[Family First Party]].

==Conservatives in Britain==

In the [[United Kingdom]], the [[Conservative Party]] is the major partner in the governing coalition. The party's current leader, [[David Cameron]],<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref> has been [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] of the UK since May 2010.

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for [[abortion]] on demand, gay [[civil partnership]], the [[Kyoto Treaty]] and to oppose [[capital punishment]] (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

[[Margaret Thatcher]] revolutionized the British conservatives much like Reagan revolutionized American conservatives. During her tenure as Prime Minister, she cut taxes, trimmed back at government waste, and exercised a strong national defense abroad (including the [[Falklands War]] of 1982).

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in [[England]] and [[Wales]] than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively [[liberal]] in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', ''[[Daily Express]]'' and ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== Conservatism and the French Revolution ==

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the [[French Revolution]].

== Benefits of Conservatism ==

Several facets of conservatism function in unison to make it an effective and powerful philosophy. Conservatism emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and initiative; this allows the [[best of the public]] to rise to their natural level of achievement. Conservatives recognize that [[big government]] fosters dependency and stifles individual achievement--and thus, weakens society as a whole.

At the same time, conservatives also recognize that with individual freedom comes [[individual responsibility]]. In the absence of a hand-holding [[nanny state]], it is imperative that each individual take responsibility for his own actions, and exercise his rights and freedoms wisely and with discretion. Thus, [[social conservatism]] is also critical to a successful society, as it emphasizes the importance of [[morality]], duty, and responsibility to one's self and fellow men.

== Also See ==
*[[Conservative resources]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Essay:Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform]]
*[[Conservative politicians]]
*[[Liberal]]

==Further reading==
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007)
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism The First Complete Guide to Issues, People, Organizations and Events'' (1987), useful older encyclopedia
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal perspective [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685789&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Frohnen, Bruce et al eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006), the most detailed reference
* Judis, John B. ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Conservatives/dp/0743217977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759425&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind''. (7th ed. 2001). highly influential conservative history of ideas [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, William A. ''Righteous warrior: Jesse Helms and the rise of modern conservatism'' (2008) 643 pages
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''The Right Nation,'' (2004) influential survey [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205919226&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World'' (2009)
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006), excellent scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241925238&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/exit-with-honor-the-life-and-presidency-of-ronald-reagan-by-william-e-pemberton.jsp online edition]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2004) on 1964 [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193684721&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/074324303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241924189&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schneider, Gregory L. ed. ''Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader'' (2003)
*Schoenwald; Jonathan . ''A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104931191 online edition] also [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Schweizer, Peter, and Wynton C. Hall, eds. ''Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Speeches-American-Conservative-Movement/dp/1585445983/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685365&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/rescueKAL007#p/a/FD3DE4F0642C350C/0/1c8v-kgLvhM Pat Buchanan's "Crossfire" interview with [[Larry McDonald]] 3 months before downing of [[KAL 007]], Ron Paul intro]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

*[http://www.conservativedirectory.com Directory of Conservative Websites - Category: Conservatives], [[Politics]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
{{Conservatism}}

User:CamilleT

2011-11-22T18:53:17Z

CamilleT: /* To do list */

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxtop|CamilleT}}
{{user political compass|-7|-5}}
{{user guns harm}}
{{user free speech}}
{{user gay rights}}
{{user noforcedreligion}}
{{user evolutionScience}}
{{user GuardDogFear}}
{{user Bad-4-U}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==To do list==
#finish [[homeopathy]]
#create [[consistent life ethic]]
#Polish [[Bernard Henri Levy]]
#correct [[saline abortion]]
#create [[Evidence supporting general relativity]]: there is some out there, though the subject may be beyond my ken

==About me==
I was born in France, and moved to the United States with my family when I was four years old. I have lived in Arizona for most of my life.

== Preemptive Contention ==

Despite my passing defense of figures such as [[PZ Myers]] and [[Penn Jillette]] I am no fan of theirs. I am an atheist, but I am not a [[New Atheism|new atheist]]. I just want us all to get along, and I resent such people as I've just mentioned for making that more difficult.

==Videos Concerning Gay Rights==
'''''You don't have the right to deprive others of theirs'''''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-irAT0viF0 This makes me very angry.]
**[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_AeCUSXfmU The second part-see, especially, 7:25]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWem_KdLVVg Welcome to a lifetime of doubt and self-hatred]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV5PbrTySxY Concerning vile lies about gay men in general]

==On Islamophobia==
*[http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/06/john_hugh_gilmore_harassing_muslim_women.php I've never heard of this guy, and I doubt he's important or even reflects the Conservative mainstream, but maybe we can still learn something from the massively high levels of pathetic he's exuding]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14199078 Truly admirable behavior]
*[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/ Food for thought]
==On religion in the United States==
*[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7I/TD4p8ijT2kI/AAAAAAAAAxs/frIqlpLkCZM/s1600/Quit+Squirming+Cartoon.jpg A satirical cartoon targeting what I perceive as a victim complex among groups enjoying the status of 'majority']
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-c-welton-gaddy/two-visions-of-faith-tony-perkins-gay-bullying_b_937933.html?ref=fb&src=sp On separation of church and state]
==On politics==
*[http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/index.html I've never liked libertarianism]. Adherents seem more concerned with making money than they are with people.

==On media bias==
*[http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines This is interesting], though from some of the headlines I would not be surprised if it was parody

User:CamilleT

2011-11-17T19:20:46Z

CamilleT: /* Videos Concerning Gay Rights */

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxtop|CamilleT}}
{{user political compass|-7|-5}}
{{user guns harm}}
{{user free speech}}
{{user gay rights}}
{{user noforcedreligion}}
{{user evolutionScience}}
{{user GuardDogFear}}
{{user Bad-4-U}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==To do list==
#finish [[homeopathy]]
#create [[consistent life ethic]]
#Polish [[Bernard Henri Levy]]
#correct [[saline abortion]]
==About me==
I was born in France, and moved to the United States with my family when I was four years old. I have lived in Arizona for most of my life.

== Preemptive Contention ==

Despite my passing defense of figures such as [[PZ Myers]] and [[Penn Jillette]] I am no fan of theirs. I am an atheist, but I am not a [[New Atheism|new atheist]]. I just want us all to get along, and I resent such people as I've just mentioned for making that more difficult.

==Videos Concerning Gay Rights==
'''''You don't have the right to deprive others of theirs'''''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-irAT0viF0 This makes me very angry.]
**[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_AeCUSXfmU The second part-see, especially, 7:25]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWem_KdLVVg Welcome to a lifetime of doubt and self-hatred]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV5PbrTySxY Concerning vile lies about gay men in general]

==On Islamophobia==
*[http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/06/john_hugh_gilmore_harassing_muslim_women.php I've never heard of this guy, and I doubt he's important or even reflects the Conservative mainstream, but maybe we can still learn something from the massively high levels of pathetic he's exuding]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14199078 Truly admirable behavior]
*[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/ Food for thought]
==On religion in the United States==
*[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7I/TD4p8ijT2kI/AAAAAAAAAxs/frIqlpLkCZM/s1600/Quit+Squirming+Cartoon.jpg A satirical cartoon targeting what I perceive as a victim complex among groups enjoying the status of 'majority']
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-c-welton-gaddy/two-visions-of-faith-tony-perkins-gay-bullying_b_937933.html?ref=fb&src=sp On separation of church and state]
==On politics==
*[http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/index.html I've never liked libertarianism]. Adherents seem more concerned with making money than they are with people.

==On media bias==
*[http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines This is interesting], though from some of the headlines I would not be surprised if it was parody

User:CamilleT

2011-11-16T17:03:46Z

CamilleT:

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxtop|CamilleT}}
{{user political compass|-7|-5}}
{{user guns harm}}
{{user free speech}}
{{user gay rights}}
{{user noforcedreligion}}
{{user evolutionScience}}
{{user GuardDogFear}}
{{user Bad-4-U}}
{{userboxbottom}}

==To do list==
#finish [[homeopathy]]
#create [[consistent life ethic]]
#Polish [[Bernard Henri Levy]]
#correct [[saline abortion]]
==About me==
I was born in France, and moved to the United States with my family when I was four years old. I have lived in Arizona for most of my life.

== Preemptive Contention ==

Despite my passing defense of figures such as [[PZ Myers]] and [[Penn Jillette]] I am no fan of theirs. I am an atheist, but I am not a [[New Atheism|new atheist]]. I just want us all to get along, and I resent such people as I've just mentioned for making that more difficult.

==Videos Concerning Gay Rights==
'''''You don't have the right to deprive others of theirs'''''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-irAT0viF0 This makes me very angry.]
**[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_AeCUSXfmU The second part-see, especially, 7:25]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWem_KdLVVg Welcome to a lifetime of doubt and self-hatred]
==On Islamophobia==
*[http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/06/john_hugh_gilmore_harassing_muslim_women.php I've never heard of this guy, and I doubt he's important or even reflects the Conservative mainstream, but maybe we can still learn something from the massively high levels of pathetic he's exuding]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14199078 Truly admirable behavior]
*[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/ Food for thought]
==On religion in the United States==
*[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7I/TD4p8ijT2kI/AAAAAAAAAxs/frIqlpLkCZM/s1600/Quit+Squirming+Cartoon.jpg A satirical cartoon targeting what I perceive as a victim complex among groups enjoying the status of 'majority']
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-c-welton-gaddy/two-visions-of-faith-tony-perkins-gay-bullying_b_937933.html?ref=fb&src=sp On separation of church and state]
==On politics==
*[http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/index.html I've never liked libertarianism]. Adherents seem more concerned with making money than they are with people.

==On media bias==
*[http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines This is interesting], though from some of the headlines I would not be surprised if it was parody

Maki (formerly Rakach)

2011-11-13T06:26:27Z

CamilleT: /* Platform */

''For the now defunct political party which used the name ‘Maki’, see [[Maki (defunct political party)]].''

'''Maki''' (the Hebrew acronym for ''Israeli Communist Party''), is an [[Israel]]i [[Communist]] political party. Originally named ''Rakach'' (Hebrew acronym for New Communist List), it was formed in 1965 by a group of communists (mostly Arabs) who left the [[Maki (defunct political party)|party which used the name ''Maki'' at the time]]. Later on, years after the original Maki disbanded, Rakach assumed the name of its mother party in 1989 and has been using it ever since.<ref name="KnessetRakach">[http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=62 New Communist List (Rakach)] on the Knesset’s website</ref>

== Platform ==

In contrast to those members who stayed in the original Maki, Rakach was uncritically supportive of all Soviet policies and as a result adopted an anti-Israeli line. <ref name="Forward">[http://www.forward.com/articles/7459/ Meir Wilner, Israeli Communist Head, Dies at 85 - Forward]</ref> The party supports allowing the Arab refugees from the [[1948 Arab-Israeli War|Israeli independence war]] to return to Israel<ref name="Meeting">[http://www.maki.org.il/en/political/132-articles/5654-international-meeting-of-communist-and-workers-parties International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties – The Communist Party of Israel]</ref>, a move which if carried out would lead to an Arab majority in the country and its unification with the [[West Bank]] and the [[Gaza Strip]] as result. <ref>[http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/julaug00/secret.html The Palestinian Arab Refugees: Arafat's Secret Weapon]</ref> Likewise, the party had a policy of cooperating with the PLO since the 70’s. <ref name="Forward" />

The party seeks the formation of a Palestinian state<ref>[http://maki.org.il/en/political/133-news/11106-israeli-peace-and-left-movements-to-rally-for-a-palestinian-state-in-tel-aviv-on-june-4 Israeli peace and Left movements to rally for a Palestinian state in Tel-Aviv on June 4]</ref>, despite the fact it is likely to pose a threat to Israel’s existence.<ref>[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3093476,00.html ‘Tel Aviv will be like Sderot’ - Ynet]</ref> Maki calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from the [[Golan Heights]] as well<ref name="Meeting" />, even though such a move will put Israel in great strategic risk.<ref>[http://www.acpr.org.il/pp/pp108xs.htm The Golan Heights and the Facts – Ariel Center for Policy Research]</ref> By giving its backing to [[Hezbollah]], Iran and Syria, Maki has managed to alienate even other radical leftists in Israel.<ref>For example, see this [http://www.challenge-mag.com/en/article__28 article] from the Israeli leftist magazine '''Challenge'''.</ref>

== Hadash ==
In 1977 Maki joined forces with other left groups in order to create the political alliance ''[[Hadash]]'' (Hebrew acronym of ''Democratic Front for Peace and Equality'') in 1977, and ever since then Maki no longer runs to the Knesset under its own name but as part of Hadash.<ref name="KnessetHadash">[http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=12 Hadash] on the Knesset’s website</ref> With that, Maki still retains an independent status within Hadash and is the dominant force within the alliance, as evident by the fact that 80 percent of the Hadash council is made up of mebers of Maki.<ref>[http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=10361 Communist Party likely to stick with Hadash – The Jerusalem Post]</ref>
== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
*[http://maki.org.il/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=79&Itemid=90 Maki’s official website]
*[http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=62 Rakach (Maki’s former name)] on the Knesset’s website
[[Category: Israeli Political Parties]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Maki (formerly Rakach)

2011-11-13T06:21:48Z

CamilleT: /* Platform */ copyedit

''For the now defunct political party which used the name ‘Maki’, see [[Maki (defunct political party)]].''

'''Maki''' (the Hebrew acronym for ''Israeli Communist Party''), is an [[Israel]]i [[Communist]] political party. Originally named ''Rakach'' (Hebrew acronym for New Communist List), it was formed in 1965 by a group of communists (mostly Arabs) who left the [[Maki (defunct political party)|party which used the name ''Maki'' at the time]]. Later on, years after the original Maki disbanded, Rakach assumed the name of its mother party in 1989 and has been using it ever since.<ref name="KnessetRakach">[http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=62 New Communist List (Rakach)] on the Knesset’s website</ref>

== Platform ==

In contrast to those members who stayed in the original Maki, Rakach was uncritically supportive of all Soviet policies and as a result adopted an anti-Israeli line. <ref name="Forward">[http://www.forward.com/articles/7459/ Meir Wilner, Israeli Communist Head, Dies at 85 - Forward]</ref> The party supports allowing the Arab refugees from the [[1948 Arab-Israeli War|Israeli independence war]] to return to Israel<ref name="Meeting">[http://www.maki.org.il/en/political/132-articles/5654-international-meeting-of-communist-and-workers-parties International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties – The Communist Party of Israel]</ref>, a move which if carried out would lead to an Arab majority in the country and its unification with the [[West Bank]] and the [Gaza Strip]] as result. <ref>[http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/julaug00/secret.html The Palestinian Arab Refugees: Arafat's Secret Weapon]</ref> Likewise, the party had a policy of cooperating with the PLO since the 70’s. <ref name="Forward" />

The party seeks the formation of a Palestinian state<ref>[http://maki.org.il/en/political/133-news/11106-israeli-peace-and-left-movements-to-rally-for-a-palestinian-state-in-tel-aviv-on-june-4 Israeli peace and Left movements to rally for a Palestinian state in Tel-Aviv on June 4]</ref>, despite the fact it is likely to pose a threat to Israel’s existence.<ref>[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3093476,00.html ‘Tel Aviv will be like Sderot’ - Ynet]</ref> Maki calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from the [[Golan Heights]] as well<ref name="Meeting" />, even though such a move will put Israel in great strategic risk.<ref>[http://www.acpr.org.il/pp/pp108xs.htm The Golan Heights and the Facts – Ariel Center for Policy Research]</ref> By giving its backing to [[Hezbollah]], Iran and Syria, Maki has managed to alienate even other radical leftists in Israel.<ref>For example, see this [http://www.challenge-mag.com/en/article__28 article] from the Israeli leftist magazine '''Challenge'''.</ref>

== Hadash ==
In 1977 Maki joined forces with other left groups in order to create the political alliance ''[[Hadash]]'' (Hebrew acronym of ''Democratic Front for Peace and Equality'') in 1977, and ever since then Maki no longer runs to the Knesset under its own name but as part of Hadash.<ref name="KnessetHadash">[http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=12 Hadash] on the Knesset’s website</ref> With that, Maki still retains an independent status within Hadash and is the dominant force within the alliance, as evident by the fact that 80 percent of the Hadash council is made up of mebers of Maki.<ref>[http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=10361 Communist Party likely to stick with Hadash – The Jerusalem Post]</ref>
== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
*[http://maki.org.il/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=79&Itemid=90 Maki’s official website]
*[http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=62 Rakach (Maki’s former name)] on the Knesset’s website
[[Category: Israeli Political Parties]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Dan Savage

2011-11-13T00:15:45Z

CamilleT:

'''Dan Savage''' is a columnist for the ''Seattle Stranger'' and has engaged in various campaigns to promote homosexuality and to smear conservatives and Christians.

== [[Gary Bauer]] ==
In the year 2000, in revenge for comments Bauer made, Savage infiltrated Bauer's campaign with the intent to infect Bauer with the flu (which Savage had at the time) by doing such things as licking doorknobs he thought Gary Bauer may touch. <ref>[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=3092 Here, Dan Savage details his efforts infecting Gary Bauer]</ref> He also illegally voted in the Iowa caucus despite not being an Iowa resident, and was thus arrested on misdemeanor charges and sentenced to 50 hours of community service and a year's probation.<ref>http://qrd.org/qrd/media/radio/thiswayout/summary/newswrap/2000/N659-11.13.00</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/opinion/how-to-be-an-iowan-for-a-day.html?src=pm</ref>

==[[Rick Santorum]]==
After Santorum's statements on homosexuality<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm</ref> in 2003, Dan Savage urged his readers to find another, less flattering definition for "santorum." After such a definition was chosen, Savage created a site called spreadingsantorum.com (not appropriate) and had instigated a Google-bombing campaign placing it as the first result given for every search. Savage later instigated a similar but ultimately unsuccessful campaign against [[Rick Warren]].

== It Gets Better ==
After a spike in news reports on [[Homosexuality and mental illness|gay youth suicides]], Dan Savage started the [[It Gets Better project]]. The point of the project is to make videos assuring gay youths that their lives will improve after high school and college, and that bullying experienced for being gay will subside or be overcome by positive experiences.

== Personal life ==
An [[open homosexual]], Savage was "married" in Vancouver to his long time partner Terry Miller, and they have an adopted son DJ.<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/03/23/134628750/dan-savage-for-gay-teens-life-gets-better</ref>

==See also==
*[[Liberal smear machine]]
*[[Village Voice]]

==References==
<references/>

==External link==
*http://www.youtube.com/user/itgetsbetterproject

{{Liberalism}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Savage, Dan}}
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Dan Savage

2011-11-13T00:14:20Z

CamilleT: /* Rick Santorum */ linking

'''Dan Savage''' is a columnist for the ''Seattle Stranger'' and has engaged in various campaigns to promote homosexuality and to smear conservatives and Christians.

== [[Gary Bauer]] ==
In the year 2000, in revenge for comments Bauer made, Savage infiltrated Bauer's campaign with the intent to infect Bauer with the flu (which Savage had at the time) by doing such things as licking doorknobs he thought Gary Bauer may touch. <ref>[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=3092 Here, Dan Savage details his efforts at infecting Gary Bauer]</ref> He also illegally voted in the Iowa caucus despite not being an Iowa resident, and was thus arrested on misdemeanor charges and sentenced to 50 hours of community service and a year's probation.<ref>http://qrd.org/qrd/media/radio/thiswayout/summary/newswrap/2000/N659-11.13.00</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/opinion/how-to-be-an-iowan-for-a-day.html?src=pm</ref>

==[[Rick Santorum]]==
After Santorum's statements on homosexuality<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm</ref> in 2003, Dan Savage urged his readers to find another, less flattering definition for "santorum." After such a definition was chosen, Savage created a site called spreadingsantorum.com (not appropriate) and had instigated a Google-bombing campaign placing it as the first result given for every search. Savage later instigated a similar but ultimately unsuccessful campaign against [[Rick Warren]].

== It Gets Better ==
After a spike in news reports on [[Homosexuality and mental illness|gay youth suicides]], Dan Savage started the [[It Gets Better project]]. The point of the project is to make videos assuring gay youths that their lives will improve after high school and college, and that bullying experienced for being gay will subside or be overcome by positive experiences.

== Personal life ==
An [[open homosexual]], Savage was "married" in Vancouver to his long time partner Terry Miller, and they have an adopted son DJ.<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/03/23/134628750/dan-savage-for-gay-teens-life-gets-better</ref>

==See also==
*[[Liberal smear machine]]
*[[Village Voice]]

==References==
<references/>

==External link==
*http://www.youtube.com/user/itgetsbetterproject
*[http://cp.noym.net/6c5a00fedfca7c0f User talk:Tmtoulouse/NAMBLA], From RW 1.0, April 2007. Dan Savage is considered an expert in Googlebombing.

{{Liberalism}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Savage, Dan}}
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Talk:Homosexual censorship

2011-11-09T18:19:31Z

CamilleT:

This is the sort of article that needs sourced examples in order to be the least bit credible. The slogan here is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," and we can't be making unfounded assertions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:A quick search for "homosexual censorship" returns only results concerning the censorship of homosexuals in various fields. You'll have to search sites like worldnetdaily and the Family Research Institute's site to find anything to support your claims.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:47, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::If that's all you looked for you weren't looking very hard. There is a lot of information out there on this subject. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:26, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Now I get it. I looked at your homepage here and I see that you support gay rights. I don't know what your beliefs are about that issue and it's ok for you to believe whatever you want of course but it seems you were biased when you looked at this article and said it contains unfounded assertions without doing anything but a quick search for the wrong terms. The assertions made in the article are not unfounded just because they did not have citations until I added one... I don't like WorldNetDaily or the Family Research Institute for theological reasons but I imagine they have materials on this subject - you thought so too but you didn't even look at either of those sites before you said this article makes unfounded assertions. That's not fair. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:40, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:I said the article made unfounded assertions because there were no references and a quick look showed little with regards to claims of censorship. In addition, claims such as '''''the mainstream media refuse to publish information about the social harms that same-sex marriage has caused in those jurisdictions that have adopted it''''' need, at the very least, an example, even if it's just hypothetical. You can't just say something is true, you have to prove it. Assuming you want people to believe you. Otherwise I can write an article about how gay people are secretly vampiric dragons from space with designs to take over the world.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:09, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't see you actually responding to my point that you were too quick to make an unfounded claim about the article containing unfounded claims. If you want to work on the article go do some research. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 20:58, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Don't be a smart aleck. The article contained, and still does, unfounded assertions. The evidence for this was the article itself. It stood without citations. You added a reference. Now, with a reference, it's better, although I would say that Facebook was censoring hate speech and not evidence of the damage gays have wrought on society. But at this point that's just my opinion.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:19, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Homosexual censorship

2011-11-09T01:09:52Z

CamilleT:

Talk:Homosexual censorship

2011-11-08T21:47:00Z

CamilleT:

Talk:Homosexual censorship

2011-11-08T21:44:34Z

CamilleT: Created page with "This is the sort of article that needs sourced examples in order to be the least bit credible. The slogan here is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," and we can't be making unfounde..."

Worst College Majors

2011-11-08T21:39:47Z

CamilleT: /* External Links */ link to article about college majors with lowest unemployment

The '''worst college majors''' are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-[[liberal]] view of the world. Students incur an average debt in excess of $25,000 for attending college, and these college majors can leave such students without the ability to pay off their loans, which are typically not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

We encourage college students and employers to improve this list over time.

==Majors==
# Women's studies,<ref>"Women’s studies ... is disappearing from British universities. ... Students have begun to realise, too, that women’s studies is useless for getting you a job. It’s no coincidence that the subject’s collapse coincided with the introduction of tuition fees. The moment you start paying for something is the moment you consider whether it’s really worthwhile." [http://www.theinsider.com/news/639292_The_End_Of_Women_s_Studies_And_Other_Useless_Qualifications]</ref><ref>http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000225.html</ref><ref>http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/why-is-gender-studies-dominated-by-one-gender-1.289830</ref> sometimes included as part of "gender studies"<ref>http://www.whitman.edu/content/genderstudies</ref>
# [[Atheism|Secularism]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/us/08secular.html</ref>
#[[Homosexuality|LGBT]] studies<ref>http://www.yale.edu/lgbts/</ref><ref>http://www.lgbts.umd.edu/</ref>
# Film<ref name=georgetown>[http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf What's It Worth?] Georgetown University, July 2011</ref>
# Puppetry
# English Literature/Literary Criticism
# Music Therapy<ref name="georgetown" />
# Dance<ref name="georgetown" />
# Interior Design<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Art History<ref name=yahoolist>[http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/110196/20-worst-paying-college-degrees-in-2010 20 Worst-Paying College Degrees in 2010] Yahoo! Finance, 08/12/2010</ref>
# Comic Book Art
# Surfing Studies
# Golf Management – University of Birmingham / Florida Gulf Coast University
# Communications
# [[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]
# Architecture <ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=5</ref>
# Degrees leading to careers in investment banking and corporate work<ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=3</ref>
# Journalism <ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/slideshow/personal-finance/2010/06/28/worst-fields-graduates/#slide=4</ref>
# Psychology<ref name="georgetown" />
# Fashion Design
# Theater<ref name="georgetown" />
# Horticulture<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Human Resources<ref name="yahoolist" />
# Photography<ref name="georgetown" />
# Video game design<ref>One observer noted that not even the video game industry typically hires people who majored in video game design.</ref>
# Forestry/Range Management/Wildlife Management
# Environmental Studies
# Outdoor Recreation
# Fine Art<ref>http://www.artcareer.net/faqs/job-market-outlook-for-artists-and-designers/</ref><ref name="yahoolist" />
# Astronomy
# Anthropology
# Sociology
# History of Music

==Courses==
# Football Culture
# Queer Musicology – UCLA
# The Science of Harry Potter – Frostburg University <ref>CBS News: ''Harry Potter Goes To College: Professor Uses Boy Wizard To Explores Links Between Magic, Science'', by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, Sept. 26, 2003 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/national/main584456.shtml] ''...Frostburg State President Catherine R. Gira said she isn't worried that some may view a Harry Potter class as trivial. "Irrespective of the specific title of the course, the 'magic' in the fiction is being analyzed by applying concepts of physics, chemistry, biology and engineering. This honors course creatively packages scientific principles in a contemporary way that will interest today's students," Gira said.''</ref>
# Native American Feminism - University of Michigan
# Cyber Feminism - Cornell University
# Feminist New Black Man - Occidental College <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvlL_lDk4ko Jason Mattera At CPAC, YouTube]</ref>
# Philosophy and Star Trek – Georgetown University in Washington <ref> [http://courses.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=View&CourseID=PHIL-180 Georgetown University Course Listing]</ref>
# Emotional Literacy<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076368/Schools-councils-waste-300-000-useless-emotional-literacy-course-faraway-island-sun.html</ref>
# Media Genres, the study of zombies - University of Baltimore <ref>[http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/university-of-baltimore-pop-culture-class-focuses-on-zombies/19625044?test=latestnews College Course Preps Pupils for Zombie Apocalypse, AOL News, September 9, 2010]</ref>
# The Science of Superheroes - UC Irvine <ref>[http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/11/14/the-top-8-california-schools-that-are-like-totally-wasting-your-money/ The Top 8 California Schools that Are, Like, Totally Wasting Your Money, NewsRealBlog, November 14, 2010]</ref>
# Field Equipment Operation (tractor driving) - UC Davis
# Hip Hop: The Politics of Culture - UC San Diego
# History of Surfing - UC Santa Barbara
# Labor Studies - UM Saint Louis & UM Kansas City <ref>[http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/04/25/video-college-course-teaches-violent-union-tactics/ Video: College Course Teaches Violent Union Tactics, The Hot Joints, April 25, 2011]</ref>
# Arguing with Judge Judy - UC Berkeley
# Self-Esteem - Cal State Fresno
# Gaga for Lady Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity- University of Virginia-Charlottesville<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/lady-gaga-college-class_n_712540.html</ref>
# Pilot Brewery (brewmaster) - UC Davis
# Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence - UC Berkeley
# Ecology of Renewable Natural Resources - Texas Tech University <ref>[http://www.depts.ttu.edu/officialpublications/courses/NRM.php Texas Tech University Course Listing]</ref>

== External Links ==

* [http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf What's It Worth? The Economic Value of College Majors] - Comprehensive report at [[Georgetown University]] website
* [http://learnfinancialplanning.com/best-worst-college-majors-degree/ Best and Worst College Majors]
* [http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes]
* [http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/10-college-majors-lowest-unemployment-rates-163049193.html College majors with lowest unemployment]
[[Category:college]]
[[Category:education]]

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Complications of abortion

2011-11-06T02:36:07Z

CamilleT:

The quote by Warren Hern is incomplete. The following sentences completely change the meaning. Here is the rest of the text (found [http://books.google.com/books?id=30EzZPp1ypYC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=In+medical+practice,+there+are+few+surgical+procedures+given+so+little+attention+and+so+underrated+in+its+potential+hazards+as+abortion.+It+is+a+commonly+held+view+that+complications+are+inevitable.&source=bl&ots=Oqshp-iSQV&sig=NpyahSSGeLpQfT53s7qkRZT582k&hl=en&ei=TCJpTtG7FaGusAKSs73_DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q&f=false here]):

{{q|"The reasons for this are not difficult to find. Abortion has been a stigmatized operation by the medical community for centuries. Medical teaching facilities have considered abortion too simple a procedure to merrit serious instruction in its performance and provision as a medical service|Warren Hern|[[quote mining|the full text]]}}

I've also been told to note that the complications listed also arise from pregnancy and delivery.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:40, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to bring this up again. If no one objects, I shall modify the article accordingly.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:07, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::I'm bumping this one last time, and if there are no objections I shall modify the article by the end of the week. I give all this warning because I know this is a sensitive subject here and I don't want to be reverted out of hand--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:59, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::It is done. The article now acknowledges the full quote, which sees the article emphasize that higher rates of complication are due to poor abortion provider to hospital relations.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:36, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

Complications of abortion

2011-11-06T02:32:27Z

CamilleT: as per the talkpage

'''Complications of abortion''' are more common than reported. Typically the [[abortion]]ist does not have privileges at a local hospital and women suffering from complications must proceed to the emergency room to be examined by physicians unfamiliar with what happened.

As the abortionist Dr. Warren Hern observed:<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=30EzZPp1ypYC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=In+medical+practice,+there+are+few+surgical+procedures+given+so+little+attention+and+so+underrated+in+its+potential+hazards+as+abortion.+It+is+a+commonly+held+view+that+complications+are+inevitable.&source=bl&ots=Oqshp-iSQV&sig=NpyahSSGeLpQfT53s7qkRZT582k&hl=en&ei=TCJpTtG7FaGusAKSs73_DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q&f=false A selection of a Warren Hern book, via Google]</ref>

{{cquote|In medical practice, there are few surgical procedures given so little attention and so underrated in its potential hazards as abortion. It is a commonly held view that complications are inevitable. The reasons for this are not difficult to find. Abortion has been a stigmatized operation by the medical community for centuries. Medical teaching facilities have considered abortion too simple a procedure to merit serious instruction in its performance and provision as a medical service}}

Short-term complications can include:

*Bladder Injury
*Bleeding
*Bowel Injury
*Cervix Laceration (5% risk)
*Ectopic (Tubal) Pregnancy (an increase in risk of 8 to 20 times)
*Hemorrhage
*Infection
*Infertility
*Future miscarriages (tenfold increased risk in second trimester miscarriages)
*Perforation of the Uterus (up to 2.5% risk)
*Placenta Previa (6 to 15 times more likely)
*Post-Abortion Syndrome (severe mental and emotional problems)
*Retained parts from pregnancy

{{Abortion}}
== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:abortion]]

Talk:Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-31T21:37:04Z

CamilleT: /* The American Nazi party */

That list of demands does not appear to be an official list : http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

== Anarchism ==

I added the category for [[Anarchism]] but wondering if others feel the definition of anarchism on Conservapedia matches the demonstrations seen with [[Occupy Wall Street|OWS]]? These protests are anti-capitalist and anti-American, but are they currently seen as anarchists too? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:28, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:You are correct. It is well documented that this is a mob of cretins and misfits. They earned the anarchism category. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:21, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Demands ==

The very few "demands" that might resemble legitimate questions are discredited by skeptical accusations, or they are backed by some very extremist anti-American philosophies. Let's take a look at some of the ridiculous pro communist, anti-American demands made by socialists, anarchists and other extremist liberals who hate capitalism, are jealous of the Tea Party Movement, and/or getting paid to act as Wall Street protesters.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.}}

Beginning a protest "demand" list with an argument stating a convicted guilty person is "an innocent man" makes this occupation less credible. Capital punishment exists to deter the crimes that result in its use. Ending capital punishment, while seemingly good in its intention, would have negative consequences. For instance, ending capital punishment might result in more crime - criminal acts that might otherwise be deterred if Capital punishment was a considered form of justice.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.}}
I highly doubt the charges were "baseless." I don't know anyone who has been arrested for doing, very literally, nothing.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more than half of the country's population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.}}
This is silly. Using the word "owned" suggests "half of the country's population" is literally enslaved without choice, and that someone who made something out of nothing but gained a lot of wealth in the process is evil. Demands like this suggest extreme positions are pushing this political spectacle in the form of a protest against Wall Street.

We can add '''Ending poverty is our one demand''' to the above, because it's redundant.

How do you go about ending "wealth inequality" or "poverty" anyway? Socialism? That's not gonna work; history has proven this. It won't happen.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.}}
I guarantee with 100% confidence that Yahoo board members didn't act in some conspiracy to block mass emails getting sent from occupywallst.org servers. For those who have ever worked in support for Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc., you would know that there is a process which low tier support teams follow to determine what server are sending Spam and then block those IP addresses from doing so. These processes to block Spammers include the number of email users reporting email from spammers. If enough Spam is reported from an IP address, and it has been determined that a crap ton of email is being send from a particular server, some tier 3 Yahoo! support dude sitting in a chair at his desk probably just clicked a button to block the site after all the flags indicated him to do so, per a standard support model process.

That being said, ending corporate censorship would be interesting, which would include [http://www.bing.com/search?q=Googlegate Google - a search engine that has been known to censor conservative websites]. Perhaps the liberal, anti-American protestors might want to rethink this one.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.}}

This is straight up anti-American ranting, and spreading disinformation. But it is in-line with the [[Conservative Dictionary Project (U)|liberal false redefinition of the United States]], so I'm not surprised liberals added it to their list of "demands." Imperialist nations would not invade a country to topple a bad regime, rebuild the country into a more free democracy, and then hand back all government and military control to the people of that country. Running with an argument to end something that does not exist discredits this political campaign to 'occupy wall street'.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.}}

America is not at war with the world. It a small group of Leftist extremists who have, in their idealist views, quote "declared war" on America.

The only thing I think of when this political campaign mentions "99%" is that this must be the percentage of people the protesters are shouting at.

God bless the United States of America. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:01, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

These Marxists are trying to bring America to the edge. Down here in Florida us tea party patriots held a counter-rally to these communist protests. I think this is a well written article on how desperate the leftists are getting. Barry will NOT have a second term. [[User:Teapartyman]]

== Let’s overthrow American capitalism and the American way!!! ==

That wasn't Bill Ayers according to the link cited. The article is about ayers but has that comment thrown in "Those are the feelings of the far left who started to disrupt Wall Street on Saturday, September 17." The article makes no claims that that was said by Bill Ayers. Nor does that quote appear on his blog or anywhere(by him) as far as I can tell. Everything just seems to link back to the same story though most make no mention of Ayers at all. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 16:32, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I deleted the quote since it violates the first Conservapedia commandment and it was added back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 01:31, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Ayers quote ==

Jpatt, I don't think anyone here would defend Bill Ayers, but you are attributing a quote to him that is not supported by the citation, unless I am misreading the citation. It may be that he thinks that (in fact, I'm pretty sure he does), but you're saying that he wrote that. And he simply did not. Why do you keep putting that back? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Honestly, I don't think he cares. It is very easy to prove that he didn't say it with a Google search. Despite one of the protests against Wiki it seems that libelous statements are just as difficult to get rid of here. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 16:27, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::Why do you think it is a "libelous" statement? You do know Bill Ayers '''is''' a terrorist, right? Are saying this in defense of Bill Ayers, suggesting the quote may somehow damage his reputation? Or are you simply pointing out that the content might no longer exists on the Internet?
::As you can see, someone added the citation needed template, which should have resolved this dispute for you. When I do a search for the quote, there are several sources with video references -- but unfortunately liberal Google owns YouTube and is very good about removing videos with content that may reveal the liberal agenda for what it really is. Likewise, if the quote was taken directly from Bill Ayers website, Bill the terrorist could have just as easily removed the content from his blog after realizing he revealed too much about his agenda. Everything Bill Ayers stands for is exactly as his quote reads.
::That being said, if it is not a verbatim quote from Bill Ayers, then I do understand you concern - just not your approach pointing it out. Jpatt is one of the most honest, credible editors on Conservapedia; it's disrespectful and incorrect to assume he would edit out of malice or libelous intent. Perhaps you could help find appropriate content to replace it with rather than simply delete a quote that is very likely to have been said by Bill the terrorist. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 16:54, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Mainly I said it because I figured it would get a reaction when nothing else seems to. I posted a question about it here and and on the pages of two people who added the quote back. No response was given to any despite what I would consider more than enough time(especially on a weekend). Whether it hurts Ayers' reputation is besides the point and I doubt he would actually care. He's pretty open about what he stands for and has no qualms about expressing it. But from everything I can find he did NOT say that. I spent a while searching yesterday. You can search as much as you want but there is no evidence to suggest he said that other than this page. The article that had been cited makes it pretty obvious that the quote was not his. It is pretty obvious to me that it is not his words. If nothing else I'm sure FOX would have made a news story about it. The fact is that we're supporting a lie here. I don't see how anyone could debate that. You can blame Google for removing things but that's an entirely different problem as far as I can see. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:10, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Point taken, but I don't think we're supporting a lie. Like most ongoing events with continuously updated content and sources, further edits and updates to this article will continue to occur. Instead of removing important content, try re-wording it or rephrasing it without taking away from the factual intent. Add some value to the article instead of removing valuable points and citations. The fact is Bill Ayers has worked almost his entire life to bring down capitalism and overthrow the American way. He is a terrorist. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 17:24, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::Wow, you responded right as I came to add something. Now I feel creepy for responding immediately. I won't "reword" something and attribute it to someone if they didn't say anything like that about the topic. He endorsed OWS, that's worthy of the article. But throwing in some random statement that he didn't say about the topic makes no sense unless the point is to insult(you get the point) the person. It is disingenuous in my eyes to do that even if that is how he feels. I actually have added some content and I may continue to do so. I just happened to stumble upon this article(from the main page) yesterday and noticed that so I thought I'd read the article cited and noted the discrepancy. I then googled it to see if I could find a better source but found that it wasn't to be so I thought I'd see what I could do about it. I commented on the talk page and got no answer. The rest is semi-amusing history. Regardless, it is awkwardly thrown in and wrongly attributed. The Citation Needed tag doesn't exactly do it for me because the evidence points to him not having said it. I dunno what else to say about it. If anyone can actually find a source for it I'll happily step back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::How's my latest edit for clarity and cleanup? I'm trying to find a compromise while keeping to the facts, and not taking attention away from the underlining agenda of this movement. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:51, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Somethings to consider about the article ==

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement wants the government to take action concerning their demands. Obama has received a lot of money from banks and Wall Street plus stepped up the war in Afghanistan. Obama has re-hired the bankster Ben Bernanke plus hasn't fired Timothy Geitner. Yet, the OWS movement isn't really putting much direct pressure on Obama. I am guessing you don't see many anti-Obama signs at their protests and rallies. So how successful can this movement really be for the next 12 months?

Second, the world banksters want to feed off the public trough (bailouts, [[Federal Reserve]], etc.) and the protesters want to feed off the public trough. To me at least, it largely seems to be a liberal vs. liberal struggle. The people of Iceland through a referendum told the banksters to get lost and they were not going to baii them out.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=127206] Over the short term, I am of the opinion that the banksters have a lot more sway with the Obama administration and with European Union commission officials than the protestors - especially since the OWS are not yet putting a lot of pressure directly on Obama. Plus, the European Union officials don't seem to be directly elected. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1rfNlJMsFw Unelected Commission is the Government of Europe - Nigel Farage on Finnish TV]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:02, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== The American Nazi party ==

Does anybody really think that they're "liberal?" Can you picture them voting for Obama, or supporting affirmative action? Actually, here in Arizona, the neo-nazis all vote for Republicans, and even try joining the Republican party. Let's put them apart.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:02, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
:Well, they are siding with this liberal movement. Should we have two sections; one for liberals and one for extremists? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:45, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Yes. It feels as though lumping the Nazis in with liberals in general is inaccurate and contentious. And yes, there have been neo-nazis at tea parties--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:37, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
Are many of the protestors pro-evolution like [[Adolf Hitler]]? Do they want heavy state interference with private enterprises like Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party? (see: [[Nazism and socialism]]). Has Obama or Nancy Pelosi denounced the anti-semitism which is occuring at Occupy Wall Street yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::OWS pretty pointless anyways. Obama and Washington is in the pocket of the banksters and the OWS people aren't about to put significant pressure on a liberal ally of crony capitalism like Obama. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-31T20:02:16Z

CamilleT: /* The American Nazi party */ new section

Talk:Pathetic fallacy

2011-10-26T22:01:46Z

CamilleT: Created page with "Wouldn't that be reification, or personification? Maybe even anthropomorphism?--~~~~"

Wouldn't that be reification, or personification? Maybe even anthropomorphism?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Complications of abortion

2011-10-26T18:59:43Z

CamilleT:

User talk:DMorris

2011-10-26T03:20:14Z

CamilleT: /* Who's gay? */

== typo ==
the charish on you page should be cherish.

== [[United Nations]] ==

Could you provide a cite for your statement that the U.N. supports mainly socialist, liberal ideas? It's not that I'm disagreeing, but statements like that typically need citations (unless things have changed in the past 3 months). -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:39, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:Thought it to be pretty much common sense, but I'll find a citation and add it. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:40, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:I found three references and added them. I realize we usually don't reference Wikipedia, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to throw that one in there with the other references. When even Wikipedia says they're socialist... [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)
::Ehh, it basically is common knowledge. The Wikipedia reference actually helps the argument in this case, methinks. I found another citation that I'll add right now. I appreciate the quick response! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:00, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Sissy punks==
Those crybabies don't need additional attention, removed example of bias talk.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:42, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

:It is never appropriate to reference non-notable vandal sources, either in articles or talk pages. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:55, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
::Okay. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:00, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

== Thanks! ==

Not exactly the same sock, but most certainly the sock of other user names! Thanks for noticing. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:43, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

== Anti-matter ==

Pretty snide. I think Roger Schlafly rises above ED, don't you? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:48, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
:Absolutely. I think you took that the wrong way; I was arguing that the topic couldn't possibly be considered encyclopedic if ED and Uncyclopedia is. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:08, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
::Gotcha. Thanks. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:10, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Public Schools....."Much Less Impressive" ? ==

And your contributions to society would be? Palin directly enriched the citizens of her state by tens of thousands of dollars each, by changing the royalty structure that the oil and gas companies have to pay...that, in and of itself, ranks pretty high in the over-all accomplishments of any elected official, ever. And you should not have forgotten that she is also an evangelical Christian. What were you thinking? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:39, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
:I don't consider Sarah Palin "much less impressive," but she did attend public school. I did read the "much less impressive" part, but didn't quite understand that the list was ''only'' to consist of "less impressive" members of society since [[Medal of Honor]] recipents were also listed. I took the ''much less impressive'' to mean that the list was much less impressive, despite that list being longer (at the time) than the list of Before 1962 graduates. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 15:48, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

== Please consider creating these articles ==

=== Please consider Creating a feminism and obesity article ===

Please consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html

In addition, have the web page list some overweight and/or obese feminists with some pictures of some overweight feminists. You can also have the article link to Conservapedia's [[atheism and obesity]] article and then have the [[Atheism and obesity]] article link to the [[Feminism and obesity]] article.

Also, you could also cite a thin Conservative woman (with her picture also featured) criticizing feminism! :)

You could then incorporate the [[Feminism and obesity]] content into the [[Feminism]] article.

I am going to take my 90 day vacation from Conservapedia so I won't be creating this article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:06, 5 February 2011 (EST)

=== Please consider creating a chub (gay culture) article ===

Please create a [[Chub (gay culture)]] article. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girth_and_mirth Then have that article link the [[Atheism and obesity]] article plus we can have the [[Atheism and obesity]] article link to the [[Chub (gay culture)]] article. See if you can find [[Chuck Norris]] saying something negative about homosexuality and then feature his pic on the web page. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

*I will get on these first thing tomorrow. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:08, 5 February 2011 (EST)

:Here is an article by Chuck Norris on homosexuality: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59697 and here is another: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81195 [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:35, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for your edit to the worst movies list! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:08, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
:You're welcome. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 00:29, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks again! ==

Thanks for fixing up my blundered article on Ada Lovelace. If you're wondering what was going on, I couldn't get through from my home computer, so I had to use a proxy. The proxy was horribly broken, wouldn't let me get through the captcha so I couldn't do the external link, and it also kept breaking the picture link. Then it stopped even letting me see Conservapedia at all. And by then the damage was done and I couldn't undo it. :-( Even a reboot of my machine didn't help. So I contacted Andy by email; he fixed it so I could access CP from my computer, but then the connection went down again. Another round of email; things seem to be OK now. If I were superstitious I would knock on wood, as they say. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:36, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== What? ==

What were you trying to do [[Block 7afaf.html|here]]?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:17, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
:There's a form at http://www.bugmenot.com/ that wanted me to make a specific URL come to life to verify my authority at Conservapedia.com to block people from posting their login credentials for CP on there, so I did that. Maybe I should have gotten Andy or somebody to do it, but I doubt they'll mind that I did it. Saw a scandal where somebody did that on another website, looked up Conservapedia.com just for giggles, and it turns out there's several vandal accounts listed there. But there won't be for long. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:24, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
::Ahh okay - I thought you might be trying to block websites, and I was just gonna say that's not the way at alllll. haha, but good luck in your user blocking!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:41, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
:::[http://www.bugmenot.com/view/conservapedia.com Mission accomplished] [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:44, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

==Pithy==
Let's not drag this into the realm of ad hominem insults. If I must change my name, then I will, but I assure you, this "Whiny Little Atheist" has a stack of facts and logic to back up his claims. Short and sweet, I don't want to cause problems with anyone, but you're free to call me whatever you like. Just know that any harsh words you levy will be met with equal recourse.
:You must really want to be blocked. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Why would I want to be blocked? As far as I can tell, I've done and said nothing contrary to the Conservapedia Commandments. Last I checked, the realm was open to opposing views (Not talk page debates, which is where this seems to be headed rather quickly). Let's not forget that you cast the first stone into the realm of personal attacks, and I had levied no complaints against any users. I only had an issue with the way atheists were unfairly represented, and with the lack of reasonable evidence to support the claims made in the thread.

But again, to be clear, I will not mince words. I do not want to cause problems, like I've already said; however, if you do choose to insult me in the future, I will not refrain from rebuttal. Let us hope we can both be civil about this and move past Religious differences. [[User:KiloByter|KiloByter]] 22:08, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:You just need to familiarize yourself with our rules here at Conservapedia, and I recommend you refrain from religious debate. We are a drama free wiki, and we don't have time to endlessly debate about religion. By the way, you can sign your posts using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. I'm not trying to attack you personally, just trying to point you in the right direction. Otherwise I would have just blocked you. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:16, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

==[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]==
Hi, I just found this essay that you wrote. I was wondering if you based it off of my [[Essay: Real Environmentalism]], since it makes most of the same points.Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:55, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
:I'm just going to go with intelligent, conservative minds think alike. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:31, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

== [[MySpace]] ==

Good catch. I found one earlier on the Greatest Conservative Movies list on ''Space Jam'' where it said Michael Jackson rather than Michael Jordan starred. Kinda makes you wonder how much spare time these vandals have.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 23:32, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. Sysops can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm interested. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 14:33, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ok, I will list you on the page. Iduan is on vacation. The panel can start when he gets back. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::: (: [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 14:40, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11 ==

The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Blocking_policy_refinement_panel_proceedings [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Block request ==

Could you please block someone with an inappropriate name?
[[User:SexiiAshIafIyJK]]

thanks. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 17:50, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would have, but JPatt beat me to it . [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 17:54, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== Did we get them all? ==

Thanks for the help in reverting a vandal's edits - did we get them all? I was working from the most recent back, and you were going from earliest - did we meet in the middle? [[User:Taj|Taj]] 09:51, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:It looks like it; I don't see anymore edits from the user that say "Top".{{unsigned|DMorris}}
:::I don't understand what you mean by '''"Top"'''. I don't see anything that says that - where do I look? Thanks! [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:23, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::I wish these idiots would stop this nonsense. Blanking pages is quite juvenile.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:22, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It wasn't quite blanking, this person added some gibberish. Who knows why? But there is an "undo" button that makes it really easy to just erase the last entry and make it go back to what it was before. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:25, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::It's annoying, but it also gives me something to do to pass the time: revert their juvenile nonsense and report to their ISPs. Hopefully some day I'll prove myself enough for Andy to give me checkuser; I'm perfectly okay with asking the senior admins for the logs, but it'd be easier if I had checkuser myself. But I don't ever see us being vandal free; there's always going to be eleven year olds that hear that they can change the contents of wikis and get inspired to mess around. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 13:53, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Yeah, that's true: there will always be liberal vandals trying to attack the site. I do hope you can become an Administrator eventually; you seem to be really good at what you do. I've been trying to get image uploading privileges here for a while, so good luck!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:01, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

==Who's gay?==

Can you help me define terms like "[[homosexual]]"? There seems to be an idea that [[men who have sex with men]] do not necessarily "have a [[homosexual identity]]" or "do not consider themselves homosexual". What does this mean? Is it mere [[denial]], or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:15, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:It means these people don't wish to define themselves as homosexual, and don't want to be associated with any stereotypes that come with it. "Men who have sex with men" are just that, nothing more. Perhaps they resent being associated with more flamboyant gays, or maybe they reject labeling altogether. I can understand the sentiment. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Complications of abortion

2011-10-25T19:07:11Z

CamilleT:

Village Voice

2011-10-25T18:55:06Z

CamilleT: you guys are gonna love this...

The '''''Village Voice''''' is a leading extreme [[liberal]] free weekly newspaper published in [[New York City]], having a free circulation of perhaps 240,000 per week. It spices its commentary and articles with occasional profanity and sometimes cartoons mocking [[Republican Party]] officials, such as former Vice President [[Dick Cheney]].

Founded in 1955 in a two-bedroom apartment in [[Greenwich Village]] by Dan Wolf, Ed Fancher and Norman Mailer, the ''Village Voice'' remains one of the most influential voices of the [[American]] far [[left]]. The offices of the paper are at Cooper Square in the East Village.

In 2005 the Village Voice was purchased by a media conglomerate and there has been criticism of its perceived change in character:<ref>http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/communitydevelopment/20070212/20/2098/</ref>

:The Village Voice is now managed by two libertarians from Phoenix, Arizona. They merged New Times with Village Voice Media, they took the name, Village Voice Media, but the controlling party are these two from Phoenix. They came to town, they fired veterans, they imposed conditions that were so difficult for others that they resigned, they lost an editor. In the view of many veterans at the Voice, they crushed the spirits of the newspaper and tried to impose a style whose fit for the city remains open to question. For example, many people at the Voice were concerned that there was a political purge ... in my view that's not very alternative at all.

==Involvement in child sex trafficking==
Village Voice Media has come under fire following number of arrests for child prostitution were associated with Village Voice owned website backpage.com, and advertising site for "call girls" and "escorts." Underage girls were advertising their "services" on the website.<ref>http://www.newschannel5.com/story/13072226/man-two-teen-girls-arrested-in-prostitution-sting?redirected=true</ref><ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/19/6-charged-with-child-prostitution/UPI-94681282275026/</ref><ref>http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail6371.cfm?Id=93236</ref> In 2010 one of the victims filed a lawsuit against Village Voice alleging that they aided and abetted forced prostitution, and that they had strong suspicions of illegal activity present on their site.<ref>http://ia600505.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.moed.108973/gov.uscourts.moed.108973.1.0.pdf</ref> A petition was started by Groundswell, a human rights group, to get Village Voice Media to close backpage.con and to cease providing a platform for sex trafficking of youths.<ref>http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-village-voice-media-to-stop-child-sex-trafficking-on-backpagecom</ref> Operation Broken Silence, an anti-slavery group, released reports in conjunction with the Imagine Foundation, an anti-child slavery group discussing the culpability of backpage.com and the impact of its operations in Northeast Ohio and the area surrounding Memphis, Tenessee.<ref>http://www.operationbrokensilence.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cleveland-Report-Final-Release1.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.operationbrokensilence.org/downloads/OBS-Backpage-Report.pdf</ref>
==See Also==
*[[Dan Savage]], journalist and columnist for Village Voice's newspaper ''The Stranger''.
== References ==

<references/>

[[category:United States Newspapers]]

User:CamilleT

2011-10-22T16:38:47Z

CamilleT: Undo revision 925048 by CamilleT (talk)

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxtop|CamilleT}}
{{user political compass|-7|-5}}
{{user guns harm}}
{{user free speech}}
{{user gay rights}}
{{user noforcedreligion}}
{{user evolutionScience}}
{{user GuardDogFear}}
{{user Bad-4-U}}
{{userboxbottom}}
==About me==
I was born in France, and moved to the United States with my family when I was four years old. I have lived in Arizona for most of my life.

== Preemptive Contention ==

Despite my passing defense of figures such as [[PZ Myers]] and [[Penn Jillette]] I am no fan of theirs. I am an atheist, but I am not a [[New Atheism|new atheist]]. I just want us all to get along, and I resent such people as I've just mentioned for making that more difficult.

==Videos Concerning Gay Rights==
'''''You don't have the right to deprive others of theirs'''''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-irAT0viF0 This makes me very angry.]
**[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_AeCUSXfmU The second part-see, especially, 7:25]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWem_KdLVVg Welcome to a lifetime of doubt and self-hatred]
==On Islamophobia==
*[http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/06/john_hugh_gilmore_harassing_muslim_women.php I've never heard of this guy, and I doubt he's important or even reflects the Conservative mainstream, but maybe we can still learn something from the massively high levels of pathetic he's exuding]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14199078 Truly admirable behavior]
*[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/ Food for thought]
==On religion in the United States==
*[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7I/TD4p8ijT2kI/AAAAAAAAAxs/frIqlpLkCZM/s1600/Quit+Squirming+Cartoon.jpg A satirical cartoon targeting what I perceive as a victim complex among groups enjoying the status of 'majority']
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-c-welton-gaddy/two-visions-of-faith-tony-perkins-gay-bullying_b_937933.html?ref=fb&src=sp On separation of church and state]
==On politics==
*[http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/index.html I've never liked libertarianism]. Adherents seem more concerned with making money than they are with people.

==On media bias==
*[http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines This is interesting], though from some of the headlines I would not be surprised if it was parody

Talk:Herman Cain

2011-10-20T17:00:54Z

CamilleT: /* "Cain would be this nation's first African-American president" */

=="Cain would be this nation's first African-American president"==
If this is true, then the [[African-American]] article needs to be changed, because Obama does fit the definition given there. Or does the editor mean that Cain would be the nation's first ''real'' '''black''' president? (See [http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-black-american-and-african-american/ here] for one interpretation of the difference between African American and Black American.) --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 20:42, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
:The truth is Obama is the first bi-racial president. I see your point if half black qualifies him as African-American and not Caucasian American. Cain would be the first president having both of his parents from African descent.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:06, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
::And Cain's wife would be the second African American First Lady.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:09, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't like it. In the old days, when race mattered most, it didn't matter where you were from or what color your parents were. You were black if any part of your ancestry was. Besides, nearly all African-Americans have white descendants. Or are you defining "African-American" as descendants of slaves? I suppose that would be alright, if a little nitpicky. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:00, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

== "Mutt or purebred?" ==

You didn't just compare a human being's ethnic/cultural/racial backgrounds to dog breeding, did you? "Pure" race is an idea that doesn't really have a lot of traction these days. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:27, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
:No i didn't, it was somebody else.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:47, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
::[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Herman_Cain&diff=prev&oldid=929741 It was your edit summary]]. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:49, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

:JPatt, did you really just use the words "Mutt" and "Purebred"? You sicken me. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 22:44, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

::Oh darn, Rex's feelings got hurt. I'll crack out my violin. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:47, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

:::How sweet. And how charming of a self-professed "Christian" to mock us blacks. Remind me, where does the Bible preach on racial purity? [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 22:49, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

::::More faux outrage Rex, what a good little liberal you are. I just mocked blacks? Um, aren't you supposed to use the politically correct "I just mocked African Americans?" Between you and ScottDG, I see nearly 10 IP addresses. You may have to retire soon fakers. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:53, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Perhaps you're not aware that there are black people outside the United States. Those of us who reside beyond your frontiers are not African Americans. As for fakers; I don't have the slightest clue (nor interest) in whomever this "Scott" is, and I do hope you enjoy your own affectations. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 22:59, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Rex, you beer muscles attitude is really impressive. Now explain to me which part is *more* racist: half white half black is characterized as biracial, or by me as a mutt. All black parents is characterized a true African America or purebred? I really want to know your opinion because I like communicating with people who call others racist and make claims that can't be verified.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:06, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::You're good, JPatt. Rather good indeed. Word of advice - if you're serious about parodying good conservatives, linger a little longer before blowing your cover. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 23:09, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Unlike you, I don't hide behind a half dozen IP's Rex. I have made my mark already even if i don't contribute any more. And you have done?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:11, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Ahh, if only I could afford a half-dozen IPs... [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 23:13, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I like that reply Rex. Three internets for you!--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:14, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::You're too kind! [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 23:16, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

User:CamilleT

2011-10-07T01:39:23Z

CamilleT: If for some reason someone should decide to run checkuser on me, I should note that due to technical difficulties I am using a public computer, and so my IP address will reflect that.

If for some reason someone should decide to run checkuser on me, I should note that due to technical difficulties I am using a public computer, and so my IP address will reflect that.

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxtop|CamilleT}}
{{user political compass|-7|-5}}
{{user guns harm}}
{{user free speech}}
{{user gay rights}}
{{user noforcedreligion}}
{{user evolutionScience}}
{{user GuardDogFear}}
{{user Bad-4-U}}
{{userboxbottom}}
==About me==
I was born in France, and moved to the United States with my family when I was four years old. I have lived in Arizona for most of my life.

== Preemptive Contention ==

Despite my passing defense of figures such as [[PZ Myers]] and [[Penn Jillette]] I am no fan of theirs. I am an atheist, but I am not a [[New Atheism|new atheist]]. I just want us all to get along, and I resent such people as I've just mentioned for making that more difficult.

==Videos Concerning Gay Rights==
'''''You don't have the right to deprive others of theirs'''''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-irAT0viF0 This makes me very angry.]
**[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_AeCUSXfmU The second part-see, especially, 7:25]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWem_KdLVVg Welcome to a lifetime of doubt and self-hatred]
==On Islamophobia==
*[http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/06/john_hugh_gilmore_harassing_muslim_women.php I've never heard of this guy, and I doubt he's important or even reflects the Conservative mainstream, but maybe we can still learn something from the massively high levels of pathetic he's exuding]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14199078 Truly admirable behavior]
*[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/ Food for thought]
==On religion in the United States==
*[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7I/TD4p8ijT2kI/AAAAAAAAAxs/frIqlpLkCZM/s1600/Quit+Squirming+Cartoon.jpg A satirical cartoon targeting what I perceive as a victim complex among groups enjoying the status of 'majority']
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-c-welton-gaddy/two-visions-of-faith-tony-perkins-gay-bullying_b_937933.html?ref=fb&src=sp On separation of church and state]
==On politics==
*[http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/index.html I've never liked libertarianism]. Adherents seem more concerned with making money than they are with people.

==On media bias==
*[http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/actual-news-headlines-vs-fox-news-headlines This is interesting], though from some of the headlines I would not be surprised if it was parody

Talk:Debate:Percentage of conservatives?

2011-10-03T23:57:42Z

CamilleT:

woops, I wrote this just as it was being deleted. Sorry.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:57, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Debate:Percentage of conservatives?

2011-10-03T23:56:30Z

CamilleT: Created page with "Conservatism is not a solely American concept, although the definition varies from place to place. A conservative in Germany will be markedly different than one here. --~~~~"

Conservatism is not a solely American concept, although the definition varies from place to place. A conservative in Germany will be markedly different than one here. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:56, 3 October 2011 (EDT)