Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Abortion facts

2008-02-10T22:57:17Z

FunnyBoy:

'''Abortion Facts'''
[[Image:9410CV.png|thumb|Abortion and the Bible]]
Educating others about [[Abortion]] requires good information. Here are some important '''Abortion Facts'''.
*Over 148 babies are aborted every hour in the United States<ref>{{hnb|Finer|2006|Ref=CITEREFFinerHenshaw2006}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in the [[United States]].<ref>{{hnb|Blount County Right to Life|2003}}</ref>
*Abortion is the leading cause of death in [[Spain]].<ref>{{hnb|Catholic World News|2007}}</ref>
*Most conservatives consider Abortion to be murder,<ref>{{hnb|Dominguez}2008}}</ref> although many liberals deny this, and abortion is unfortunately legal in many places.<ref>[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm]</ref>

<blockquote>
''34 years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court still has a pro-Roe majority. Moreover, since that fateful 1973 ruling, almost 50 million unborn babies have been aborted, and millions of mothers hurt physically, psychologically and spiritually...'' but a ''quiet revolution is under way... it is very visible down "on the street" – at the level of real life where women and girls make the desperate decision to solve their "problem pregnancy" by aborting...''

''And within many of those pregnancy care centers are the new "4D" ultrasound machines. When the abortion client lies down and experiences, for the first time, the reality of her unborn baby – and not a grainy, difficult-to-see old-fashioned sonogram, but a modern, crystal-clear image of her own baby – she does not go through with the planned abortion in the vast majority of cases.'' [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2018 How the pro-life side will win the war]
</blockquote>

== External significant links ==

*[http://www.abortioninfo.net/ Abortion:The Facts]
*[http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ National Right to Life]
*[http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Abortion Facts]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm Abortion access: All sides of the issue]
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/bible.asp Abortion and the Bible]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm Abortion] The Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/other_web_resources.asp Abortion Links - OVER 300!]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Blount County Right to Life
| Year = 2003
| Title = Abortion: The Leading Cause of Death in America
| Publisher = A Voice for the Unborn
| URL = http://www.voiceforunborn.com/causeofdeath.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Catholic World News
| Given = CWNews
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-11-29
| Title = Abortion rates soar in Spain
| Publisher = Catholic World News
| URL = http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55043
}} retrieved on 2008-01-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Dominguez
| Given = Jerome
| Year = 2008
| Title = Abortion Is Murder
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://biblia.com/abortion/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-24
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Finer
| Given1 = Lawrence B.
| Surname2 = Henshaw
| Given2 = Stanley K.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-08-03
| Title = Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence, 2001–2003
| Publisher = Guttmacher Institute
| URL = http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
}} retrieved on 2008-01-23

== External links ==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323829,00.html Report: Most Abortion Seekers Age 25 or Older, Have Already Given Birth Once], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', January 18, 2008

<center>
[[Image:Quickfacts.gif|80px]]
[http://www.abortionfacts.com/abortion/q_facts.asp Quick facts]</center>

[[Category:Abortion]]

User:FunnyBoy

2007-10-01T04:37:53Z

FunnyBoy: Christian Conservatives Consider Third Party Effort

I am a '''conservative''' Point of View Pusher.

Food for thought: [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/ Christian Conservatives Consider Third Party Effort].

McCarthyism

2007-09-05T03:25:29Z

FunnyBoy: /* Hypocrisy regarding McCarthy's */ McCarthyism invented by liberals

The word '''McCarthyism'''
"was coined in the bowels of NKVD headquarters at 3 Dzerzhinsky Square in Moscow and first published in the Communist ''Daily Worker,'' Moscow’s U.S. house organ with the justified belief that it would be enthusiastically picked up and used by America’s useful liberal idiots." [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={45A7D4B2-DD6F-4B87-934A-F1811BD31FC5}]

It as a derogatory and misleading term, based on false premises. First, Senator McCarthy had nothing to do with the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]] or the [[Hollywood Blacklist]]. Second, and more important, it was not true that McCarthy was persecuting the innocent or that liberals were merely defending [[civil liberties]].

The [[Venona intercepts]] prove that McCarthy was right about the extent of Soviet spies in the U.S. government.

==Pretext==

[[Senator Joseph McCarthy]] led a prominent public campaign to investigate [[Communist Party of the United States|Communist Party]] members working in sensitive US government jobs in violation of the [[Hatch Act]]. The Hatch Act forbade federal employment of workers who had membership in "any political organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government." By 1950, it was widely known that the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]] had obtained atomic weapons know-how with the assistance of American citizens, many of them government employees. The United States had spent $4 billion to develop the technology, roughly equivalent to $80 billion in today’s money. International relations were extremely tense at the time, and the knowledge that America's [[Cold War]] enemy had obtained atomic weapons capabilities with the help of American government employees, along with the perception that the [[Truman administration]] did nothing about it, was very worrisome to many.

McCarthy's efforts to remove security risks from government infuriated the American [[Left]], and they often use the term to mean aggressive questioning of someone's background or personal beliefs, or making accusations of disloyalty. It is a derogatory term. It is often used to refer to [[House Un-American Activities Committee]] (HUAC) or the Hollywood Blacklist, even though those weren't really part of McCarthy's campaign. <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/bates/05252007.htm Joe McCarthy: Gone But Certainly Not Forgotten], Michael M. Bates, ''New Media Journal'', May 25, 2007. </ref>

==Amerasia cover up==

[[Image:Mcc2.JPG|right|thumb|285px|McCarthy at a fund-raising dinner in 1954]]
On June 6 1945, 6 persons, including three U.S. government officials, were arrested on conspiracy and espionage charges related to possession of roughly 1000 stolen classified Government documents in the offices of ''[[Amerasia]]'' magazine. ''Amerasia'' had published classified materials verbatim from the United States wartime intelligence service, the [[Office of Strategic Services]] (OSS). FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover believed he had an "airtight case," and Justice Department officials were ready to prosecute. [[Thomas Corcoran]] (Tommy the Cork), a former [[Franklin Roosevelt]] personal adviser who lived in the [[White House]] at the President's side and afterward became a prominent Washington lawyer and fixer, worked with the Truman administration to cover up the case. Soviet agent [[Duncan Lee]], counsel to OSS head General William Donovan, was the highest ranking [[KGB]] operative among nearly two dozen known Soviet agents who penetrated the OSS, worked in Corcoran's Washington law firm. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster092.pdf Vol. 92, pgs. 20 - 21] pdf, January 26, 1947. Biographical details and extended wrap-up on Duncan C. Lee, formerly of OSS, [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s allegations concerning him, his contacts with [[Donald Wheeler]] and [[Mary Price]], and his employment by the law firm of President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] adviser [[Thomas Corcoran]]. </ref>

==The [[Silvermaster case]]==

In November 1945 a courier from a very large [[CPUSA#Secret_apparatus|CPUSA underground apparatus]] which operated in numerous federal agencies throughout [[World War II]], including the [[White House]], defected to the [[FBI]]. The [[KGB]] had removed [[Elizabeth Bentley]] from overseeing at least 80 KGB sources late in the war. When she realized she knew too much, was no longer of use to the KGB and her life was in danger, she told her story in a deposition.
to the FBI. Bentley was assigned covername "Gregory" to protect her identity, and the highly secret investigation was referred to as "the Gregory Case."

The FBI knew of 5 Soviet agents during the war, Bentley added at least another 80, some of them still employed in the government at that time. Her story at first was incredible, and embarrassing to the FBI, but it soon was determined that Bentley’s allegations were borne out by information already in Bureau files. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Ladd to the Director, November 12, 1945, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster008.pdf Vol. 8, pg. 3] pdf.</ref> By December, no fewer than 227 FBI agents were involved in the case. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Ladd to the Director, November 12, 1945, Vol. 8, pg. 6 pdf.</ref>

For much of 1946 the suspects were surveilled, and other information came from [[Igor Guzenko]] <ref>Hoover to Frederick B. Lyon, 24 September 1945, Central Intelligence Agency, [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/part1.htm Igor Gouzenko file. 5 pages].</ref> , a Soviet code clerk who defected in Canada, and the [[Army Signals Intelligence Service]] which began secretly reading [[KGB]] communications with Moscow. In the later part of February a 194 page report based upon Bentley's deposition entitled, ''Underground Espionage Organization (NKVD) in Agencies of the United States Government'' <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster023.pdf Underground Espionage Organization (NKVD) in Agencies of the United States Government"], Vol. 23, pgs. 55 - 272, February 21, 1946. Includes alphabetical index at end.</ref> was transmitted to Secretary of State [[George Marshall]] an other agencies. By December of 1946 leaks were developing. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Memorandum for the Attorney General, December 20, 1946, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster081.pdf Vol. 81, pgs. 55 - 56] pdf. In transmitting a summary of the investigation on [[Harry Magdoff]], Hoover urges the Attorney General to give consideration to the overall facts of the case before making the information available to any other government official. Hoover complains that a summary report prepared for the Secretary of the Treasury had been "lost" and a copy furnished to the White House was found in a desk drawer at the [[War Assets Administration]] -- the agency Greg Silvermaster had been working in.</ref>

In January of 1947, Edward Morgan of the FBI was asked to make an objective analysis of the case. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FBI_Memo_Morgan_to_Clegg%2C_Janaury_14%2C_1947 Morgan to Clegg, January 14, 1947].</ref> Morgan writes, "Coming in after the event as the Bureau did, we are now on the outside looking in, with the rather embarrassing responsibility of having a most serious case of Soviet espionage laid in our laps without a decent opportunity to make it stick. This very circumstance, however, necessitates pursuing more direct methods." Without [[Venona]] evidence, Morgan observes, "the case is no more than the word of [Bentley] against that of the several conspirators. The likely result would be an acquittal under very embarrassing circumstances."
Morgan suggests it is possible “some of the lesser lights among the subjects would crack during the course of a careful and pointed interview" and concludes with the recommendation "That one of the subjects of this case, probably the weakest sister, be contacted with a view to making him an informant...Failing in this respect, that immediately the other subjects be exhaustively interviewed. Since an interview with one would virtually amount to putting all of them on notice, it would seem logical to conduct such interviews as nearly simultaneously as possible....That failing to break any of the subjects, serious consideration be given to exposing this lousy outfit and at least hounding them from the Federal Service. Several possibilities exist in this regard but this would seem to be a bridge to cross when we get to it."

Press leaks continued from an Executive Conference formed of DOJ prosecutors and FBI investigators discussing how to proceed. In a hand written margin note from a memo dated January 23, 1947, Hoover writes, "in view of all the 'gabbing' done by the Dept to the Press there is little which can be expected from any action now." <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Tamm to the Director, January 23, 1947, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster093.pdf Vol. 93, pgs. 20 -22] pdf.</ref> Four days later Hoover, in a somber tone, recommends to the Attorney General, "I am of the opinion...it will be impossible to continue the investigation....the subjects...are now all very security conscious... any attempt to interrogate them, either by Bureau agents or before a grand jury, would produce nothing. Obviously, this situation leaves only the third alternative; that is, that the Department furnish to the employing departments the basic data concerning the activities of the individual subjects as a possible means of concluding the case. It is assumed, of course, that the employing departments will take administrative action against the subjects who are employed in these departments." <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memorandum_for_the_Attorney_General%2C_January_27%2C_1947 Memorandum for the Attorney General, January 27, 1947].</ref>

==Failure to discharge security risks==

In June of 1947, members of the [[Senate Appropriations Committee]] sent a confidential report to Secretary of State [[George Marshall]], in which they stated:

{{Cquote|It is evident that there is a deliberate calculated program being carried out not only to protect Communist personnel in high places, but to reduce security and intelligence protection to a nullity. . . . On file in the Department is a copy of a preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States, which involves large numbers of State Department employees. . . this report has been challenged and ignored by those charged with the responsibility of administering the department...}}

The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." On June 24, 1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from June 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. <ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm John Emil Peurifoy, Foreign Service Office & United States Ambassador], Arlington National Cemetery Website, retrieved 21 March 2007.</ref>

In 1947 <ref>NSA Archives, National Cryptological Museum, [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/handouts/VenonaChrono.html Venona Chronology]; "~September 1: Col. Carter Clarke briefs the FBI's liaison officer Robert J. Lamphere on the break into Soviet diplomatic traffic. September: Carter W. Clarke of G-2 advises S. Wesley Reynolds, FBI, of successes at Arlington Hall on KGB espionage messages." </ref>, it was apparent that no individual in the U.S. Government realized that evidence of massive Soviet espionage within the government was developing on twin tracks. <ref>Robert Louis Benson, and Michael Warner, eds. [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/preface.htm VENONA: Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957,] pg. 9. Washington, DC: National Security Agency/Central Intelligence Agency, 1996. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1996. Robert L. Benson, works in the Office of Security, National Security Agency; Michael Warner, Deputy Chief of the CIA History Staff.</ref> There was an [[FBI]] counterintelligence investigation <ref>Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html Appendix A, 7. The Cold War]; "In November 1945 Elizabeth Bentley informed the FBI of her activities as a Soviet courier, which in turn led to renewed interest in Chambers. In late August or early September 1947, the FBI was informed that the Army Security Agency had begun to break into Soviet espionage messages". </ref> which empanelled a grand jury in New York to look into defector [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s allegations of espionage regarding high government officials, and the [[Army Signal Intelligence Service]] reading Soviet cipher decrypts <ref>National Security Agency, Venona Archives, Introductory History of VENONA and Guide to the Translations,[http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps33230/www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/monographs/monograph-1.html The VENONA Breakthroughs]; "An Arlington Hall report on 22 July 1947 showed that the Soviet message traffic contained dozens, probably hundreds, of covernames, many of KGB agents, including ANTENNA and LIBERAL (later identified as Julius Rosenberg). One message mentioned that LIBERAL's wife was named "Ethel." General Carter W. Clarke, the assistant G-2, called the FBI liaison officer to G-2 and told him that the Army had begun to break into Soviet intelligence service traffic, and that the traffic indicated a massive Soviet espionage effort in the U.S.</ref> at [[Arlington Hall]]. It was a case of one hand not knowing what the other was doing. Leaks in the investigation into the [[Greg_Silvermaster#Silvermaster_group|Silvermaster case]] began to threaten the successful prosecution. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, Vol. 93, February 1947. Summary: Hoover memo expressing doubts about successful prosecution and statement that, because of leaks by the Department, "there is little which can be expected from any action now." Further Hoover memo of February 4, 1947, saying "investigative reports in this case would not be furnished to the Criminal Division [of Justice] because of the possibility that some of the material therein would be publicized." See also January 27, 1947 J. Edgar Hoover Memorandum for the Attorney General, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster093.pdf pgs. 31 -32].</ref> So when McCarthy later made charges that the Truman administration knowingly protected Soviet agents, on the surface, this appeared to large sectors <ref>National Counterintelligence Center (NACIC), [http://www.nacic.gov/history/CIReaderPlain/Vol3Chap1.pdf Counterintelligence Reader, Vol. 3, Chap. 1, pg.47], "Polls taken at the time revealed that a majority of Americans believed that Communism at home and abroad was a serious threat to US security".</ref> of the American public<ref>Margaret Chase Smith, [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/SmithDeclaration.pdf Declaration of Conscience, pg. 2], 1 June 1950, U.C. Congress, Senate, Congressional Record, 81st Congress, 2nd sess., pp. 7894-95. "The Democratic administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia through key officials of the Democratic administration. There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges"; "..there have been enough proved cases, such as the ''[[Amerasia]]'' case, the [[Hiss]] case, the [[Coplon]] case, the [[Harry Gold|Gold]] case, to cause nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations".</ref> as true.

FBI Director [[J. Edgar Hoover]] was among only a handful of people in the U.S. Government who was aware of the Venona project, and there is no indication Hoover shared Venona information with McCarthy. In fact, Hoover may have actually fed McCarthy dead end files on family relatives or close associated of real espionage. Hoover told a House Committee in February 1950 that counterespionage required "an objective different from the handling of criminal cases. It is more important to ascertain his contacts, his objectives, his sources of information and his methods of communication" as "arrest and public disclosure are steps to be taken only as a matter of last resort." He concluded that "we can be secure only when we have a full knowledge of the operations of an espionage network, because then we are in a position to render their efforts ineffective." <ref>J. Edgar Hoover, Testimony before House Appropriations Committee, 2/7/1950.</ref> And there is no indication McCarthy might have known he was being used by Hoover in this way.
[[Image:Semenov.JPG|right|thumb|285px|Iulii Khariton with a copy of the first Soviet atomic bomb, detonated on August 29, 1949.]]
The Chairman of the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee (JAEIC) wrote a memorandum to the Scientific Intelligence Committee complaining how they had been kept out of the loop in intelligence sharing after the confession of [[Klaus Fuchs]] had become more widely known. In the memorandum the JAEIC suspected the FBI and others may have had considerable counter espionage information which would have been helpful to them in making an estimate on the status of the Soviet atomic energy program, but they had not been aware of it until after Fuchs arrest They noted some information was obtained through HUAC, some from Canada as a result of the [[Igor Gouzenko]] case, and Hoover supplied some information but it was only of slight value. The memorandum declares, "The only real assurance we have of getting the information at present seems to be as a result of a Congressional Committee" or the arrest of suspects. <ref>W. K. Benson to Chairman, Scientific Intelligence Committee, [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/29.gif Failure of the JAEIC To Receive Counter Espionage Information having Positive Intelligence Value,]9 February 1950, Central Intelligence Agency. </ref>

In summary memorandums to Director Hoover of [[Venona project]] information begun in 1950 entitled, ''Operations of the [[MGB]] Residency at New York, 1944-45'', Special Agent [[Alan Belmont]] reported the FBI had identified 206 persons involved in Soviet espionage activity who had been active in United States. Of this number the FBI had information from defector [[Elizabeth Bentley]] and other sources regarding espionage activity on 87 of these persons. However, espionage activity on the part of 119 persons from Venona information were not previously known to the FBI prior to 1946 but were mostly identified through investigation by 1950. <ref>[http://foia.fbi.gov/venona/venona.pdf FBI Venona file]</ref>

==Hiss and the UN==

When the Office of Special Political Affairs (OSPA) was created in 1944, Hiss became the deputy director - a sensitive and key position. In August of 1944, Hiss was executive secretary of the Dumbarton Oaks conference. When he returned, all matters pertaining to the new organization came under his direct supervision. With [[Harry Hopkins]], [[Cordell Hull]], and others, Hiss worked on the first drafts of the [[United Nations]] Charter. <ref>Ralph de Toledano and Victor Lasky, [http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Seeds_Of_Treason-Ralph_de_Toledano_and_Victor_Lasky-1950-278pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=343&PHPSESSID=b964065077a1de19538c4c7b1cf9e825 ''Seeds of Treason''], (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1950), pg. 107.</ref> Hiss negotiated privately with the ailing U.S. president, [[Franklin Roosevelt]], and [[CPSU]] General Secretary [[Josef Stalin]] at the [[Yalta conference]]. <ref>Toledano and Lasky, ''Seeds of Treason'', pg. 109.</ref> It was here that FDR agreed to allow the Soviet Union to occupy Poland and set up a [[Comintern]] affiliated [[puppet state]] -- a clear violation of the principals of self-determination expressed in the [[Atlantic Charter]], and the very cause over which Great Britain went to war with Germany in September of 1939.

On March 3, 1945, the director of the [[KGB]], Lt. General [[Pavel Fitin]] instructed [[Ishkak Akhmerov]], head of KGB Illegal operations in the United States to learn what he could about American plans for the forthcoming United Nations San Francisco Conference. Assigning top priority to the task, Fitin ordered an early report. [[Alger Hiss]] was responsible for planning the conference. Hiss had been working with [[Soviet Military Intelligence]] (GRU), since the mid 1930s. Ordinarily security procedures dictated that a Case officer from one Soviet Intelligence organization would not contact an agent working for another, however under the extraordinary circumstances of the approaching UN organizational conference late in the war, Akhmerov did so, and reported on his contact with Hiss. <ref>[http://carnellknowledge.townhall.com/g/3d62b172-7492-4d6c-8062-c91c1e2d3266 McCarthy Was Right], Excerpts from The Venona Program, September 04, 2006. Retrieved from Townhall.com September 04, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/foxpaper.htm In the Enemy’s House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence], John F. Fox, Jr., Presented at the 2005 Symposium on Cryptologic History, 10/27/2005.</ref><ref>Report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. United States Government Printing Office. Appendix A, Part 6, [http://www.gpo.gov/congress/commissions/secrecy/pdf/12hist1.pdf Page 36] pdf. </ref> Akhmerov reported how after the Yalta conference Hiss traveled to Moscow where [[Andrey Vyshinsky]] passed on to him the GRU's gratitude.<ref>[http://www.nsa.gov/venona/venon00006.cfm 1822 Venona Washington to Moscow 30 March 1945]. National Security Agency National Cryptologic Museum. Retrieved September 04, 2007. </ref> A codename was assigned by one Soviet Intelligence agency for an agent working for another Soviet Intelligence agency which created confusion among investigators. <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2904_venona.html Secrets, Lies, and Atomic Spies], NOVA Transcript, PBS Airdate: February 5, 2002. Retrieved from PBS.org September 04, 2007.</ref><ref>Who was 'Venona's' 'Ales'? cryptanalysis and the Hiss case. Eduard Mark, Intelligence and National Security, Volume 18, Number 3, September 2003 , pp. 45-72(28)</ref> A [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]] investigation determined that Hiss was responsible for the employment of 494 persons on the United Nations initial staff. <ref>Activities of U.S. Citizens Employed by the UN, second report of the [[SISS]] (March 22, 1954), p. 12.</ref> With the leaks in the Silvermaster case, [[Elizabeth Bentley]] was called to testify in late July 1948, and [[Whittaker Chambers]], a [[CPUSA]] defector from the 1930s, a few days later repeated information he had given to President [[Franklin Roosevelt]]'s Assistant Secretary of State [[Adolf Berle]] in 1939 - firsthand knowledge of Hiss's espionage activity - information that Berle in person relayed to President Roosevelt. <ref>Toladano and Lasky, ''Seeds of Treason'', pg. 83 (pg. 91 pdf).</ref><ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,811892-1,00.html The Case of Alger Hiss], Time magazine, Feb. 13, 1950. Contemporaneous report 3 days after Sen. McCarthy's Wheeling, West Virginia Speech.</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_47_17/ai_80900413 Hiss defenders covering for the `old man'], by Ralph De Toledano, Insight on the News, Dec 17, 2001.</ref> Ambassador to the Soviet Union [[William Bullitt]] had likewise warned FDR as early as 1939 that Hiss was an agent of the [[Soviet Union]].<ref>Toladano and Lasky, ''Seeds of Treason'', pg. 86 (pg. 94 pdf).</ref>

==White and the IMF==

In May of 1941 Assistant Secretary of the Treasury [[Harry Dexter White]] met for lunch with [[Vitali Pavlov]], [[KGB]] assistant to the Chief of Military Section for work in the United States and Canada. White had been carefully selected by [[Iskhak Akhmerov]], who ran the [[Silvermaster group]] and knew White. The purpose was to present a series of policy initiatives for White to inject into Washington's [[foreign policy]] discussion which involved Soviet efforts to worsen U.S. Japanese relations. The strategy was to encourage Japan's war party to view the United States, rather than Soviet Union after several recent clashes on the [[Manchukuo]] border and [[Comintern]] support to the [[Maoist]] [[CCP]], as Japan's main enemy. Pavlov handed White an outline of themes to promote among key U.S. policymakers including a demand, to be wrapped in tough rhetoric, that Japan recall its armed forces from China. <ref>Vitali Pavlov, "Operation Snow," News of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, Moscow, August 1995, pgs. 5-6.</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200101/ai_n8935656 Soviet penetration of the U.S. gets fresh look], Allan H Ryskind, ''Human Events'', Jan 29, 2001. Review of Romerstein and Breindel, ''The Venona Secrets''.</ref> President Roosevelt accepted White's proposals for economic sanctions against Japan and on July 26, 1941 implemented a full scale economic blockade, froze all Japanese financial assets in the U.S. which virtually ended all trade between the two countries. The chief of the Japanese Navy told the emperor that if Japan resorted to war, it would be doubtful that Japan could win. The Japanese Cabinet sought desperately to reach an agreement in Washington. <ref>[http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119975.pdf ''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time''], Carroll Quigley, Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pg. 739. ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref> Japan abandoned all military plans against Soviet Siberia, which had badly needed Red Army troops for the defense of Moscow pinned down, and looked to the south instead for the oil resources. Due to White's involvement and influence, the U.S. set up a foreign policy that placed the Kremlin's interests ahead of the White House's.<ref> Schecter and Schecter, Sacred Secrets, pp. 31, 33.</ref>

In August, 1941, Japanese Prime Minister Konoe made a proposal to meet with [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|President Roosevelt]]. On November 18, 1941, Secretary of the Treasury [[Henry Morgenthau]] sent to Secretary of State Hull a memorandum drafted by White on the terms for peace that should be presented to Japan. <ref>Memorandum by Secretary Morgenthau, November 17, 1941, Foreign Relations, 1941, IV, pp. 606-613. Dr. Kubek in 1959 wrote "at this time is altogether improbable" that White would have acted in collaboration with Currie and one of the Hiss brothers whom he was known to have a relationship, or "at their instigation." This is in keeping with the version of events told by Vitali Pavlov in 1995 that White received through him directions from Moscow. Kubek further adds White heard his draft was being tampered with in the State Department where the Hiss brothers worked and wished to have the tampering stopped. ''Communism at Pearl Harbor'', Kubek, 1959, pg. 19.</ref> At noon on November 25, Secretary of War [[Henry Stimson]] and Secretary of the Navy [[Frank Knox]] met at the White House with General [[George C. Marshall]]. Stimson wrote in his diary the main question was "how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition." <ref>Henry L Stimson's Diary, November 25, 1941, Pearl Harbor Attack, Part II, p. 5433. For other interpretations of Stimson's statement Cf. Charles Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948). Chapter XVII; Charles C. Tansil, Back Door to War (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1952), pp. 645-652; George Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor (New York: Devin-Adair Company, 1947), Chapter XlX. Roosevelt's fear was not that Japan would attack the United States, but that she might not.</ref> In his testimony before the Congressional Committee investigating the [[attack on Pearl Harbor]], General Marshall said that if the 90-day truce which was the substance of the Kanoe-Roosevelt proposal had been effected, the United States might never have become involved in the [[World War II]] at all; that a delay by the Japanese from December, 1941 into January, 1942 might have resulted in a change of Japanese opinion as to the wisdom of the attack because of the collapse of the German front before Moscow in December, 1941. <ref> Pearl Harbor Attack. Part 39, p. 502; Part 2, p. 5177; Part 3, p. 1149.</ref> On the afternoon of November 26, 1941, Hull put in final shape the ultimatum. The harsh, demanding language only strengthened the position of the war party in Tokyo and Nomura found it impossible to reach an agreement because the demands were extreme.<ref>[http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119975.pdf ''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time''], Carroll Quigley, Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pg. 741. ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref> In this ten-point ultimatum, eight of the drastic demands were written by Harry Dexter White, an agent of the Soviet Union. War between the United States and Japan - the lone obstacle to [[Comintern]] designs in the Far East - was the primary aim of Soviet foreign policy in the Far East.

On November 8, 1945 the [[FBI]] notified the [[White House]] with a provisional summary of defector [[Elizabeth Bentley]]’s revelations. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster016.pdf Vol. 16, pgs. 98 - 100] pdf.</ref> President Truman, whose motto was "The Buck Stops Here," telephoned FBI Director [[J. Edgar Hoover]] on November 14 and told Hoover to confer with Secretary of State [[James Byrnes]] on the various matters of Soviet espionage. <ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster016.pdf Vol. 16, pg. 101; pgs. 102 -104] pdf.</ref> On May 4, 1946 Truman announced the appointment of White to head the newly created [[International Monetary Fund]]. White, like [[Greg Silvermaster]] and others, rather than be fired as a Security risk at a time when there was public support for the execution of spies, received a transfer, promotion and increase in pay grade.

==Oppenheimer and atomic espionage==

An 86 year old [[Pavel Sudoplatov]], wrote in his memoirs,
{{Cquote|My Administration for Special Tasks was responsible for sabotage, kidnapping, and assassination of our enemies beyond the country's borders. It was a special department working in the Soviet security service....I was also in charge <ref>[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=43900&group_id=13349 Was Oppenheimer a Soviet Spy?] A Roundtable Discussion with Jerrold and Leona Schecter, Gregg Herken and [[Hayden Peake]]. The Cold War International History Project. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Peake, curator of the [[Central Intelligence Agency]]’s (CIA) Historical Intelligence Collection [http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_folder/P_folder/peake.html], states, "The content of the ''Sacred Secrets'' Merkulov letter is also questioned on the point of whether it is or is not "smoking gun" evidence that Robert Oppenheimer was a Soviet source or agent while he worked on the atom bomb project during WWII. ...In short, I accept the letter and its implications. </ref> of the Soviet espionage effort to obtain the secrets of the [[atomic bomb]] from America and Great Britain. I set up a network of illegals <ref>H.B. Laes, Theory of Fielding, [http://web.archive.org/web/20050204173143/http://www.tof.blogspot.com/#kgborg KGB Organization]. Retieved September 04, 2007. [http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycases_folder/bomb_folder/bombgenm-q.html]</ref> who convinced [[Robert Oppenheimer]]<ref>[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.document&identifier=5034F6F1-96B6-175C-9170648C02EA02F8&sort=Collection&item=Post%20Stalin%20succession%20struggle Merkulov to Beria], 2 October 1944. The letters states, "In 1942 one of the leaders of scientific work on [uranium] in the USA, Professor Oppenheimer while being an unlisted (nglastny) member of the apparat of Comrade Browder informed us about the beginning of work.
On the request of Comrade Kheifitz, confirmed by Comrade Browder, he provided cooperation in access to research for several of our tested sources including a relative of [Comrade Browder]</ref>, [[Enrico Fermi]], [[Leo Szilard]], [[Bruno Pontecorvo]], [[Alan Nunn May]], [[Klaus Fuchs]], and other scientists in America and Great Britain to share atomic secrets with us.<ref>Pavel Sudoplatov, ''Special Tasks : Memoirs of an Unwanted Spymaster'', Little Brown and Company, London, 1994, pg. 3. </ref>}}

{{Cquote|The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists designing the American atomic bomb at [[Los Alamos]], New Mexico...Oppenheimer, Fermi, Szilard, and Szilard's secretary were often quoted in the NKVD files from 1942 to 1945 as sources for information on the development of the first American atomic bomb. It is in the record that on several occasions they agreed to share information on [[nuclear weapons]] with Soviet scientists. At first they were motivated by fear of [[Hitler]]; they believed that the Germans might produce the first atomic bomb. Then the Danish physicist [[Niels Bohr]] helped strengthen their own inclinations to share nuclear secrets with the world academic community. By sharing their knowledge with the Soviet Union, the chance of beating the Germans to the bomb would be increased. <ref>Sudoplatov, ''Special Tasks'', pg. 172. </ref>}}

{{Cquote|[[Gregory Kheifetz]], our operative who had been successful in atomic espionage...described Oppenheimer as a man who thought of problems on a global scale. Oppenheimer saw the threat and promise of the atomic age and understood the ramifications for both military and peaceful applications. We always stressed that contacts with him should be carefully planned to maintain security, and should not be used for acquiring routine information. <ref>FBI Special Agent in Charge William Borden who investigated Oppenheimer's [[CPUSA]] connections and was requested to make a determinaion of his findings wrote, "He was a vigorous supporter of the H-bomb program until August 6, 1945, (Hiroshima), on which day he personally urged each senior individual working in this field to desist... The central problem is assessing the degree of likelihood that he in fact... during the crucial 1939-1942 period...became an actual espionage and policy instrument of the Soviets. ... my opinion is that...the worst is in fact truth. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_from_William_L._Borden_to_J._Edgar_Hoover,_November_7,_1953 Letter from William L. Borden to J. Edgar Hoover], November 7, 1953.</ref> We knew that Oppenheimer would remain an influential person in America after the war <ref>McCarthy stated during the Executive Session hearings, "I noticed with some interest Oppenheimer’s articles in regard to the H-bomb, for example; he vigorously opposed our proceeding with any experimentation in the development of the H-bomb. When he lost out in that, he now has taken the position that we should not have an air force capable of delivering that bomb. Maybe I am simplifying it a bit, but in fact that is his argument. His argument has been that we should build a screen of defense around this nation." McCarthy Hearings, Executive Session Transcripts, September 15, 1953, [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Volume3.pdf Vol. 3, Pgs. 37 - 38] pdf.</ref> and therefore our relations with him should not take the form of running a controlled agent. We understood that he and other members of the scientific community were best approached as friends, not as agents. Since Oppenheimer, Bohr, and Fermi were fierce opponents of violence, they would seek to prevent a nuclear war, creating a balance of power through sharing the secrets of atomic energy. This would be a crucial factor in establishing the new world order after the war, and we took advantage of this. <ref>Sudoplatov, ''Special Tasks'', pg. 195. </ref> }}

{{Cquote|In developing Oppenheimer as a source, [[Vassili Zarubin]]'s wife, Elizabeth, was essential. ...In 1941 [[Elizabeth Zarubina]] was a captain in the [[KGB]]. After her husband's posting to Washington, she traveled to California frequently to cultivate the Oppenheimer family through social contacts arranged by Kheifets. Kheifets then introduced Elizabeth to Oppenheimer's wife, Katherine, who was sympathetic to the Soviet Union and Communist ideals, and the two worked out a system for future meetings." <ref>Sudoplatov, ''Special Tasks'', pg. 190. </ref>}}

{{Cquote|By 1943 it was agreed at the Center that all contacts with Oppenheimer would be through illegals only. [[Lev Vasilevsky]], our rezident in Mexico City, was put in charge of running the illegal network after Zarubin left. But Vasilevsky was directed to control the network from Mexico City, not to move to Washington, where the FBI could more easily monitor our activities. Our facilities in Washington were to be used as little as possible. ...Vasilevsky told me that on one occasion in 1944 he visited Washington in order to pass to the Center materials received from Fermi. To his dismay, the embassy radio operator, who was supposed to encode his message, was missing. The next day the clerk was brought to the embassy by the American police, who had picked him up dead drunk in a nearby bar. Vasilevsky decided on the spot not to use the Washington embassy to transmit any of his sensitive messages; he would rely on Mexico City. ...In 1945, for his work in handling the Fermi line in the United States, Vasilevsky was appointed deputy director of Department S. For a short period in 1947 he was the director of the department of scientific and technological intelligence in the Committee of Information, which was the central intelligence-gathering agency from 1947 to 1951. <ref>Sudoplatov, ''Special Tasks'', pg. 197. </ref>}}

{{Cquote|A description of the design of the first atomic bomb was reported to us in January 1945. In February, although there was still uncertainty in the report, our rezidentura in America stated that it would take a minimum of one year and a maximum of five years to make a sizable bomb. <ref>Sudoplatov, ''Special Tasks'', pg. 197.</ref>....We decided that Terletsky should be sent to see Bohr .... He was to explain the problems in activating the nuclear reactor to Bohr and to seek his advice. Terletsky could not be sent alone on such a critical assignment, so he was accompanied by Lev Vasilevsky, who had run the Fermi line from Mexico and now was my deputy director of Department S. He would lead the conversation with Bohr while Terletsky would handle the technical details..... Bohr understood, perhaps for the first time, that the decision that he, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and Szilard had made to allow their trusted scientific proteges to share atomic secrets had led him to meet agents of the Soviet government.... Bohr readily explained to Terletsky the problems Fermi had at the University of Chicago putting the first nuclear reactor into operation, and he made valuable suggestions that enabled us to overcome our failures. Bohr pointed to a place on a drawing Terletsky showed him and said, "That's the trouble spot." This meeting was essential to starting the Soviet reactor, and we accomplished that feat in December 1946. <ref>Sudoplatov, ''Special Tasks'', pg. 205 - 207.</ref>}}

==China and subversion of the Four Policeman==

==Korea and the nuclear arms race==

==Extrajudicial means==

Defector [[Louis Budenz]] stated publicly he could identify 400 members of the Communist conspiracy which had delivered the know-how to build the [[atomic bomb]] to the Soviet Union. This number of 400 was closely corroborated by the 349 codenames the cryptographers in the Venona project had discovered and FBI field investigators were working to identify. Defector [[Elizabeth Bentley]] also identified 81 persons involved in espionage, and Soviet cipher clerk [[Igor Gouzenko]] yielded up names too when he defected in Canada.

In sum, some 205 total true identities of persons involved in espionage during World War II were known to the FBI by 1950, some being corroborated by multiple sources. Given the secret nature of Venona, and the unwillingness to let the Soviet Union know the US was reading its codes, the known spies were eased out of government positions, and where prosecution could occur using sources other than Venona, a few cases were attempted. But the priority was always to maintain the secrecy regarding the breaking of Soviet codes, remove security risks, and forego law enforcement while cryptographers and field investigators continued working to identify others.

So secret was Venona, that not even [[President Truman]] was informed. The revelation Truman had never been informed was the subject of much controversy and discussion when the Venona documents were declassified in 1995. Given the extent of the Soviet penetration of the U.S. Government, including virtually all the U.S. security and intelligence services, the State and Treasury Departments, and even the [[White House]], the decision not to inform Truman appears to have been the logical and appropriate decision. <ref>Thomas Patrick Carroll, ''The Case Against Intelligence Openness'', International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 2001, Vol. 14, Nol. 4, pgs. 559 - 574. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08850600152617164]</ref> General [[Omar Bradley]] took it upon himself not to inform Truman, and told the few others with the knowledge of the Soviet attack on American security that he would inform the President if the need were to arise. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/830wsuop.asp?pg=2 The Origins of McCarthyism], What did Harry Truman know, and when did he know it? by Robert D. Novak, ''The Weekly Standard'', 06/30/2003, Volume 008, Issue 41.</ref>

After the Soviet Union exploded its first nuclear test, and it became apparent to the public that the Soviet Union obtained the knowhow from American citizens employed by the federal government during the [[New Deal]], with the growing tensions of the times over the [[Berlin Airlift]], the loss of the U.S.'s wartime ally in China to the Chinese [[Comintern]] forces, and later the [[Korean War]], those with knowledge of Venona had as an immediate priority to remove Soviet operatives from sensitive positions. President Truman had instituted a system of Loyalty checks through review boards, but Truman himself was unaware of the extent of the real danger. Hoover approached McCarthy with a plan to (a) ease more security risks out of government positions, (b) put pressure on friends and relatives to reveal what they knew about Soviet operatives based upon familial relations or association in various communist front organizations, and (c) gain more knowledge of spy’s contacts and operations. It took a willingness on McCarthy's part to stretch the limits of Senate Rules, and there is no indication Hoover disclosed completely to McCarthy the FBI's full knowledge of Soviet espionage activity in the United States for the prior two and half decades. The immediate crisis was so large and potentially catastrophic that McCarthy was willing to act with Hoover and the FBI to help remove the remaining security risks.

Most but not all of [[Senator McCarthy]]’s numbered cases were drawn from the “Lee List” or “108 list” of unresolved [[Department of State]] security cases compiled by the investigators for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. Robert E. Lee was the committee’s lead investigator and supervised preparation of the list. The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. The Lee list, also using numbers rather than names, was published in the proceeding of the subcommittee. <ref>U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, State Department Employee Loyalty Investigations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1950).</ref>

Senator McCarthy furnished the [[Tydings Committee]] the real names attached to his numbered cases, and the Tydings Committee received the real names attached to the Lee list as well. <ref>McCarthy to Tydings, 18 March 1950 with attached list.</ref> Over the years that followed all of the names became public one way or another. Additionally, in a series of speeches McCarthy named others as secret Communists, spies, security risks, or participants in the Communist conspiracy.

==Tensions of the times==

*President Truman issued Executive Order 9835 on 22 March 1947 intended to tighten protections against [[subversion (political)|subversive infiltration]] of the US Government, defining disloyalty as membership on a list of subversive organizations maintained by the Attorney General.

*Beginning 24 June 1948 the first major crisis of the [[Cold War]] exposed the rift in the [[Allied Powers|Alliance of World War II]] which had defeated Germany, when Soviet troops blockaded access points to Berlin, sparking the first Berlin Crisis, and lasting a year.

*On 20 July General Secretary [[Eugene Dennis]] and 11 other [[CPUSA]] leaders were arrested and indicted under the [[Smith Act]] of conspiring to advocate violent overthrow of the US Government.

*On 31 July [[Elizabeth Bentley]] testifies before the [[House Committee on Un-American Activities]] (HUAC), publicly accusing [[Harry Dexter White]] and [[White House]] adviser [[Lauchlin Currie]] of being [[Soviet agents]].

*3 August [[Whittaker Chambers]] names [[Harry Dexter White]] and the first General Secretary of the [[United Nations]] Charter meeting,, former State Department employee and confident of [[President Roosevelt]] at the [[Yalta Conference]], [[Alger Hiss]] as Communists in testimony before the HUAC.

*13 August Harry Dexter White, the first head of the [[International Monetary Fund]], a keystone post war institution, denies charges he is a Soviet agent before HUAC.

*On 16 August Harry Dexter White, died of a heart attack three days after denying involvement with KGB. His involvement was later positively determined by the FBI through evidence gathered by the Venona project as a Soviet agent code named "Jurist". <ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FBI_Memorandum_identifying_Harry_Dexter_White_as_agent_Jurist FBI Memo Ladd to the Director, October 16, 1950], Identifying Harry Dexter White as agent Jurist.</ref>

*In late summer of 1949, on 29 August the Soviet atomic bomb project was revealed when it exploded a replica of [[Fat Man]]; the [[Soviet Union]] had gained nuclear technology by espionage from the United States, which spent $4 billion dollars (about $48 billion in today's dollars) to develop during World War II.

*On 23 September 1949 Truman announces that the Soviets have exploded an atomic bomb.

*19 October [[Meredith Gardner]] and [[Robert Lamphere]] secretly meet at [[Arlington Hall]] and formally inaugurate full-time FBI/Army [[Signals Intelligence Service]] liaison on coded Soviet messages.

*On 1 October [[Maoist]] forces were victorious after the effective [[subversion (political)|subversion]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|President Roosevelt]]’s support for the [[Chinese Nationalist]] government during World War II.

*On 21 January 1950, [[Alger Hiss]] was convicted of perjury for testimony before HUAC regarding espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union.

*24 January [[Klaus Fuchs]] confessed in Great Britain to espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union while working on the [[Manhattan Project]] at Los Alamos National Laboratory during the War.

*22 May FBI arrests [[Harry Gold]] for espionage.

*On 25 June, the [[Korean War]] began when North Korea invaded South Korea; [[President Truman]] authorized deployment of American troops while the Allied Powers provided little or no assistance. The United States essentially stood alone in a confrontation that had the prospect of nuclear weapons being used — nuclear weapons technology that had been given to the enemy by US citizens, some within the government.

*On 17 July, [[Julius Rosenberg]] was arrested on charges of espionage regarding the transfer of technology to the Soviet Union to build the atomic weapon.

*In May 1951, two members of the [[Cambridge Five]] — [[Donald MacLean]], Second Secretary of the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., and [[Guy Burgess]] — defected to Moscow after it was discovered MacLean transmitted information on the atom bomb from the British Embassy to the Soviet Union during World War II.

The Korean War disrupted the postwar economic boom with military service, shortages, restrictions and cost-of-living inflation which could not help but breed discontent. And through it all the press kept up a constant barrage of "Communists in Washington," "twenty years of treason." <ref>''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time'', Carroll Quigley, Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pg. 986. ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref>

==Hypocrisy regarding McCarthy's ==

McCarthy had a confrontation with Boston attorney Joseph Welch in televised hearings. Welch demanded that McCarthy name someone who had belonged to a [[Glossary_of_espionage_terms#Fronts_and_cutouts|Communist front]] organization, and then complained that it was cruel, reckless, and indecent to do so. McCarthy named Welch's associate Fred Fisher as a member of the [[National Lawyers Guild]], who Welch himself had previously outed to the NY Times six weeks earlier.[http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A4297_0_4_0_C/]
Welch dishonestly pretended to be shocked, and famously said, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"

{{cquote|Liberals invented the myth of McCarthyism to delegitimize impertinent questions about theiro own patriotism...Liberals demand that the nation treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies...Any evidence that anyone seeks to harm America is stridently rejected as "no evidence."<ref>Coulter, Ann ''Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism''©2003 Crown Forum, New York, New York, pp. 1-2</ref>}}

==See also==
*[[Institute of Pacific Relations]]
*[[Soviet spies in America (1921-1948)]]

==Further reading==
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/FBI_Memo_Morgan_to_Clegg%2C_Janaury_14%2C_1947 FBI Silvermaster file, Morgan to Clegg, January 14, 1947]
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memorandum_for_the_Attorney_General%2C_January_27%2C_1947 Memorandum for the Attorney General, January 27, 1947]
*[http://www.education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Silvermaster/summaries.htm FBI Silvermaster file, Brent to Hennrich, October 30, 1950]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]

Bruce N. Shortt

2007-09-01T04:42:52Z

FunnyBoy: itallics

'''Bruce N. Shortt''' has a Ph.D. from Stanford, a law degree from Harvard, was a Fulbright Scholar, and serves on the board of [[Exodus Mandate]], an organization that promotes homeschooling. He is also the author of ''[[The Harsh Truth About Public Schools (book)|The Harsh Truth About Public Schools]]''.

Bruce N. Shortt

2007-09-01T04:42:37Z

FunnyBoy: link fix

'''Bruce N. Shortt''' has a Ph.D. from Stanford, a law degree from Harvard, was a Fulbright Scholar, and serves on the board of [[Exodus Mandate]], an organization that promotes homeschooling. He is also the author of [[The Harsh Truth About Public Schools (book)|The Harsh Truth About Public Schools]].

Bruce N. Shortt

2007-09-01T04:42:20Z

FunnyBoy: His book

User talk:FunnyBoy

2007-09-01T04:38:44Z

FunnyBoy: /* Overnight editing */ thanks

{{Welcome|FunnyBoy|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:55, 24 August 2007 (EDT)}}
:I changed the above to FunnyBoy. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 11:06, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

== Maps ==

Hi

How can I help you?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:11, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know where you may find one. But I think you may build a digital one. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: To start, take a look here:

::http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx

::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

If I could interject -- aren't maps "Afrocentric" in order to not split up an entire continent? This doesn't seem liberal to me so much as practical. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:49, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Sure, that is the rational provided now. But I seem to recall that in the early 90s there was an ideologically motivated movement to marganilze the United States. See [[Consequentialism]]. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== 90/10 Commandment ==

FunnyBoy, of your twenty edits to Conservapedia, at least half are talk page comments. Please concern yourself with helping build this encyclopedia by making improving edits to existing articles, or better still starting new ones! Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Two of my edits were by proxy of super powers, as the articles in question were locked. I hope this explains the ratio. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:18, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*LOL! Well, that still doesn't come close to 90/10 does it? ;-) Just don't fall into the trap of some, and get too caught up in the yakking, and not helping to improve articles, okay? Some might just block you automatically based on 80% talk, without a word, and I don't want that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:39, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the advice. I am trying to contribute, but unfortunately, I am pretty busy these days (have some free time tonight). [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Overnight editing ==

I appreciate your edits. Unfortunately, you will not yet be able to edit during the late night/early morning. Those privileges are earned. General editing will be turned off soon (Friday night) but will resume early Saturday. See you Saturday!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for the message. I'll come back next week sometime, unless my schedule changes. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 00:38, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Bruce N. Shortt

2007-09-01T04:37:44Z

FunnyBoy: Another homeschooling figure

'''Bruce N. Shortt''' has a Ph.D. from Stanford, a law degree from Harvard, was a Fulbright Scholar, and serves on the board of [[Exodus Mandate]], an organization that promotes homeschooling.

Talk:Sexual ethics

2007-09-01T04:35:41Z

FunnyBoy: /* Redirect this article to Procreation */ Still recommend redirect or move.

I feel like this article should have more. Ya know get down to the nitty gritty of why sex before marriage is wrong. I did a thesis on this subject in College, I'll try to pull it out. I just think what we have in...insufficient. I realize we want to keep kids away from the big, bad, scary talk of genitals and what not. But, ya know, how about some horror stories of what happens to people who have premarital sex. And contain that study, I know it's slightly "off"...but the one that says condoms don't work 15% of the time. I should be able to find a link on one of the Christian blogs or something. {{unsigned|FactorX}}

== Redirect this article to [[Procreation]] ==

Consider redirecting or merging this article with [[Procreation]]. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 00:21, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:Still recommend redirect or move. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 00:35, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed change by [[User:FactorX]]==
'''Sexual Intercourse'''

Sexual Intercourse is an act fundamental to all living creatures of complex natures. Religion teaches us that it is a gift from God that is not to be squandered, misused, or done in excess. Sex, while a part of our nature, is a private part of our nature, not to be shared, discussed or flaunted in public. However some chose to do so. This behavior often is said to lead to sexual deviancy, such as pedophilia, rape and even the inflection of STDs (sexual transmitted diseases).

There are several reasons why a human couple would engage in sexual acts.

* Love: Love is considered the highest form of sexual relations. Love occurs when a man and woman, in marriage express themselves intimately in the privacy of their marital bed. While some critics and [[Liberal]] advocates of "free love" may say this claim is false, most Americans agree that premarital sex is wrong<ref>http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-7354(198807%2F08)20%3A4%3C180%3AGPSMAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A</ref>.
* Lust: Lust occurs when a man and woman, or people of the same gender, engage in sexual acts outside of marriage for pure pleasure. Under the confines of lust people put themselves at risk. Premarital sex falls under the category of [[high risk behavior]]<ref>http://www.rediff.com/getahead/2005/mar/23youth.htm</ref>. These types of activities can result in sexual deviancy. Later on in life those who engage in lustful acts may experience tendencies to look at porn, engage in [[homosexual]] behavior, or even break [[laws]] in regards to sex.
* Reproduction: Humans have a natural tendency, hardwired into their brains to engage in sex for the purpose of reproduction. The [[Bible]] teaches that this was given to us by God so that we could "be fruitful and multiply" and fill the Earth. For this reason any birth, no matter where it occurs, or under what circumstances is sacred, because it is life. Many [[Liberals]] attempt to stifle reproduction with [[Abortion]] and agencies devoted to promoting "protected" sex.

----

'''"Protected" Sex'''

Some critics of "[[Abstinence Only]]" education cite that sex can occur under "protected" or controlled circumstances.

However, a study done in 2001 found with this formula:

(6.7-0.9)/6.7 = 0.85

That condoms were only 85% effective at preventing HIV, leaving a 15% chance of contracting the disease <ref>http://www.catholicherald.com/bonacci/01mb/mb010906.htm</ref>. Proving yet again that the only way to be sure is abstinence only education, since teenagers can easily be made not to have sex in a coed environments of our High Schools and Colleges.

Some Liberals will claim the math used to obtain those numbers is faulty. However, as shown the number indeed comes to 85%, a sobering statistic for anyone considering "protected" sex.
[[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 00:32, 1 September 2007 (EDT) for [[User:FactorX]]

The Harsh Truth About Public Schools (book)

2007-09-01T04:32:59Z

FunnyBoy: Stub on book

'''The Harsh Truth About Public Schools''' is a book by [[Bruce N. Shortt]] published in 2004 by Chalcedon/Ross House Books.

== See also ==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53622 Homeschool regulation: The revenge of the failures] (article that points out that the failed public shool industry insists that it regulate the successful homeschool movement.)

User:FunnyBoy

2007-09-01T04:22:14Z

FunnyBoy: bye

I am a '''conservative''' Point of View Pusher.

Talk:Sexual ethics

2007-09-01T04:21:29Z

FunnyBoy: Redirect this article to Procreation

Counterculture

2007-09-01T04:19:20Z

FunnyBoy: stub on counterculture

'''Counterculture''' is a sociological phenomenon that opposes the values and norms of the mainstream culture.

== See also ==
*[[Rock and roll]]
*[[Sociology]]
*[[Sociology]]
*[[hippie]]
*[[Sexual revolution]]
*[[homosexuality]]

Hippie

2007-09-01T04:16:22Z

FunnyBoy: wikilink

'''Hippie''' is a term used for members of the [[Counterculture|counter-culture]] of the 1960's who opted to "drop out (of school and the career [[rat race]]), turn on (by taking [[psychedelic]] [[drug]]s) and tune in (to an alternative way of looking at the [[universe]])", rejecting the [[materialism|materialistic]] values of the society around them. The non-violent movement was largely in response to the the [[Vietnam War]], and used the slogan "peace and love." Hippie [[culture]] also became associated with [[rock music|rock and roll]], recreational [[drug]] use, "[[free love]], as reflected by the slogan "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll." Hippies wore their hair long. "Jesus freaks" were hippies who were born-again [[Christian]]s and followed Christ's commandments regarding the importance of [[love]], and eschewing the use of drugs. Many hippies experimented with alternative living arrangements such as [[commune]]s, where all work and all possessions were shared. In the movie "[[Easy Rider]]" the protagonists visit a hippie commune in [[California]]. [[Tom Wolfe]]'s account of [[Ken Kesey]]'s [[Merry Pranksters]] in his book "[[The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test]]" documented one aspect of the hippie scene.

Hippies were preceded by the counter-culture [[beatnik]] movement in the 1950's.

It was the capitalistic society in which the hippie was born that gave them financial support. The largesses of their parents and free public handouts helped buoy the idealistic and misguided cultural experiments they attempted. Hippies failed in the end to affect real change since their world view was based on a flawed concept of human nature. They believed that people were willing to live in a lessened state of materialistic ease and were altruistic as opposed to self-interested. This same flaw led to the fall of communism and the failure of all the 1960s communes.

To this day politicians avoid growing beards due to how that alienates voters reminded of the hippies, whom many voters would never support{{fact}}.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[category:culture]]

Square Enix

2007-09-01T04:14:55Z

FunnyBoy: stub on Japanese video game maker

'''Square Enix''' Company, Limited is a maker of video games based in Japan.

User:FunnyBoy

2007-09-01T04:06:36Z

FunnyBoy: intro

I am a conservative Point of View Pusher.

Kannapolis

2007-09-01T03:57:37Z

FunnyBoy: Kannapolis (North Carolina) stub

'''Kannapolis''' is a small city in [[North Carolina]] with a population of 36,910.<ref>2000 census</ref>
== Famous ==
*[[George Clinton (funk musician)]]
== External links ==
*[http://www.cityofkannapolis.com/ City of Kannapolis]

Talk:Bible

2007-09-01T03:50:22Z

FunnyBoy: Concordia Self Study Bible

{{protect|MountainDew}}

[[Talk:Bible/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Bible/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==What the serpent said==
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==''La'' or ''Ta''==
Look, Karajou. Let's be reasonable about this. The fact is that ''la'' is not a definite article in Greek. Not in Ancient Greek, not in Koine Greek and not in Modern Greek. If you do a Google search of [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22definite+article%22+Greek "definite article" Greek], you'll get dozens of pages that all show the exact same declension. Or go and look it up in a dictionary or grammar. ''Biblia'' is neuter plural, thus the correct article is ''ta'' - ton biblion, ta biblia.

This is not a question of doctrine or scripture or exegesis or anything. It is a simple question of what the definite article is in Greek. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you as to the definite article in Greek, and I do agree with you on being reasonable. If the term ''ta biblia'' was used in the 2nd century AD to describe the books of the Bible as a whole, I most certainly will change the article to reflect that. I am going to hit the books tomorrow at MTSU, and I will go through many works by experts in ancient languages (the term has to be 2nd century Greek, not 20th century Greek); the results of which and where they came from will be posted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds like a lot of work for one entirely uncontroversial detail. Just look it up in in '''A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature''' by Friedrich Blass ''et.al.'', or '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek''' by James Hope Moulton ''et.al.'' [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since you researched it, I'm going to post the info immediately. All I need now is the page numbers of the books where they are located (as per MLA), plus publisher and date published for the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Very well, if you insist. They're in my office, and it's after hours here. I'll get them for you sometime tomorrow or the day after that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Still waiting on the page numbers. I found the publishers, and I used the American published version of the Blass work as the source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go:

<blockquote>Moulton, James Hope. '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'''. Wilbert Francis Howard, ed. Vol 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. P. 117.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Blass, Friedrich and A. Debrunner. '''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch.''' Friedrich Rehkopf, ed. 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. §249-276.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Bauer, Walter. '''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur'''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, eds. 6th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.</blockquote>

:Moulton has an excellent table of the inflections of the definite article. If more information is needed, Blass contains more than anyone would ever want to know about articles in Κοινὴ. And in case there is still doubt, Bauer shows quite clearly that the correct article for βιβλίον is το, hence τα βιβλία. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Much appreciated; in fact, the German titles have been included as well in the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article Name==
This name of this article should be The Holy Bible. [[User:Epicon|Epicon]] 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== New American Standard Bible ==

Who created the NASB? The Catholic Church[http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.html] or the Lockman foundation?[[User_talk:Ymmotrojam#New_American_Standard_Version|Discussion on this matter]]. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 13:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm This] also makes for interesting perusal [[User:Fox|Fox]] 13:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I didn't realise there were 2 New American Bibles (''Standard'' and Catholic). [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request SysOp==
Would it be possible, and agreable, to add another translation/version to the list currently held on the page? The version I would like to propose adding is the [[Complete Jewish Bible]], which is the version used by the majority of [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jews]]. Some brief blurbs can be seen [http://www.onlinebible.org/html/eng/bible-info/complete-jewish-bible.html here] and [http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html here]. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Concordia Self Study Bible ==

Please add [[Concordia Self Study Bible]] to version. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

New International Version

2007-09-01T03:46:59Z

FunnyBoy: /* Criticism */ wikilinking to Concordia Self Study Bible

The '''New International Version''' (NIV) of the [[Bible]] is a leading evangelical translation. More than one hundred scholars, beginning in the late 1960s, undertook the project of retranslating the Bible for the best extant (existing) originals in [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts. Their goal was that the translation be:<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31#books&version=31;</ref>

:an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.

The International Bible Society (formerly the New York Bible Society) funded this project, and owns the copyright.<ref>http://www.ibs.org/</ref>

== Criticism ==

There are Christians opposed to the use of the New International Version. Their argument is that it was based on faulty texts, that certain doctrines have been slipped in by the various translators, and that the language is not as beautiful as the King James Version.

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>
See also: [[Concordia Self Study Bible]]
[[Category: Bible versions]]

Atheism

2007-09-01T03:42:34Z

FunnyBoy: Restoring previous version of article

'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of any [[God]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

==Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism==
Since 1979 proponents of atheism have often been attempting to dilute the definition of atheism to mean a mere [[agnosticism|lack of belief]] there is a God or gods.<ref name="DivCon">http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>
One of the reasons why some proponents of atheism have been attempting to dilute the definition of the term atheism is to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God. <ref name="DivCon" />

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], states that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." <ref name="DivCon" />
In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is a merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered.<ref name="DivCon" /> The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref><ref name="DivCon" />
==Types of Atheism Further Explained==
There different types of atheism, based on different answers to the following questions:
* In what God or gods deny and/or disbelieve?
* Why does the atheist deny and/or disbelieve?
* How does the atheist's denial and/or disbelief manifest itself?

=== Which God or gods? ===
Since atheism is denial or disbelief in a God or gods, it is important first to identify in ''which god'' the atheist denies or disbelieves. In ancient times, for example, Christians were accused of being atheists because of their disbelief of the pagan gods, even though they believed in the ''Christian'' God.<ref>Athenagoras, ''A Plea for the Christians, 2d century a.d.[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html]</ref> Socrates was also accused of Atheism, although references to God run throughout his recorded statements.<ref>Plato, Apol., 26,c.</ref> Also, [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Baruch Spinoza]] professed belief in "God," but they defined "God" as the cosmos as a whole, and without personality. Therefore, one can be considered an atheist with respect to one god, but a theist with respect to another, and it is important to understand first in ''what God'' the atheist denies or claims to disbelieve.

=== Why does the atheist state they disbelieve?===
Atheists claim there are two main reasons for their denial of the existence of God and/or disbelief in God: the conviction that there is positive evidence or argument that God does not exist ([[Strong atheism]]), and their claim that theists bear the burden of proof to show that God exists, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted ([[Weak atheism]]).

=== Manifestations ===
There are two ways that atheism manifests itself:
* Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, ''believing'' that God does not exist.
* Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, ''living'' as though God does not exist. <ref>Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] in his sermon ''A letter to American Christians'' spoke of "practical atheism".[http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2001/cln10117.html]</ref>

== Various Causal Factors of Atheism ==
There are a number of reasonable causes for atheism:
* Rebellion -- atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence<ref>"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:19-20 (NKJV) </ref>
* Error -- atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts <ref>"A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." -- C.S. Lewis, ''Suprised by Joy''.</ref>
* Troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards becoming an atheist.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html</ref> Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists and found that a large majority of them had a father who was the following: present but weak; present but abusive, or a father who was absent.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt</ref><ref>http://www.probe.org/content/view/36/91/</ref> Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt</ref> Dr. Vitz has also noted other common factors he observed in the famous atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt</ref>

== Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism ==
[[Image:134t.gif|thumb|200px|left|The psalmist [[David]] wrote: "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."]]
The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and [[Moses]] simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ([[Genesis]] 1:1). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp</ref>

Accordingly, the psalmist [[David]] wrote the following:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - [[Psalm]] 14:1 ([[King James Bible|KJV]])

The psalmist David also stated that "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalm 19:1

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies to the existence of God when he wrote the following:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - [[Romans]] 1:19-20 (NKJV)

==Tenuousness of Atheism in Prominent People Who Claimed to Atheist==
[[Image:Sartre1.gif|thumb|150px|right|[[Jean-Paul Sartre]]]]
The atheism of notable people who claimed to be atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] was one of the leading atheists of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:
{{cquote|As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.<ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Charles Darwin]]]]
[[Charles Darwin]] wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] which is a type of atheist.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref><ref>American Scientist May 1977:323</ref> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

== Denials That Atheist Exist ==
[[Image:Vantil.gif|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Cornelius Van Til]]]]
Some have asserted that atheists do not exist. In regards to a biblical statement on atheism Sir [[Francis Bacon]] stated in his essay ''Of Atheism'' the following regarding atheism:
{{cquote|The [[Bible|Scripture]] saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it....It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man.<ref>http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html</ref>}}

In addition, Christian [[philosophy|philosophers]] and [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] Dr. [[Cornelius Van Til]] and Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] argued there are no atheists and that atheists are actively suppressing their belief and knowledge of God and enigmatically engage in self-deception.<ref>http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA191.htm</ref> The [[England|English]] poet [[Edward Young]] wrote in his famous work ''Night Thoughts'' that "By night, an atheist half-believes a God."<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/100/224.html</ref>

There is also the aforementioned tenuousness of the atheism in Charles Darwin and Jean-Paul Sartre who claimed to be atheists.

== Claims of the Conditionality and Nonconditionality of Atheism ==
[[Image:Raphael.jpg|left|140px|thumb|[[Plato]]]]
[[Plato]] wrote that "Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not
compel them to the acknowledgement of a divine power."<ref>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0609D&L=ads-l&P=15696</ref> Reverend William T. Cummings is famous for stating that "There are no atheists in foxholes."<ref>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0609D&L=ads-l&P=15696</ref> Chaplain F.W. Lawson of the 302d Machine Gun Battalion, who was wounded twice in wartime, stated "I doubt if there is such a thing as an atheist. At least there isn't in a front line trench."<ref>http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0609D&L=ads-l&P=15696</ref>

Although news organization MSNBC featured a story in which atheist veterans claimed that there ''are'' atheists in foxholes,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322117/</ref> as previously mentioned, Sir [[Francis Bacon]] wrote: "The [[Bible|Scripture]] saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it....It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man.<ref>http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html</ref> In addition, the Bible states that "The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, But the folly of fools is deceit."(Proverbs 14:8). Also, there is the previously-mentioned theory of Christian [[philosophy|philosophers]] and [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] [[Cornelius Van Til]] and Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] who argued there are no atheists and that atheists are actively suppressing their belief and knowledge of God and enigmatically engage in self-deception.<ref>http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA191.htm</ref>'''

==Atheism and [[Communism]] ==
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people," <ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html</ref> and also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction." <ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

==Criticism==

===Atheism and Logic===
[[Image:Bible_Const2.jpg‎|thumb|225px|right|Dr. [[D. James Kennedy]]]]
[[D. James Kennedy|Dr. D. James Kennedy]] wrote the following regarding the illogicality of atheism:
{{cquote|Atheism is what is called a "[[universal negative]]." One of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a universal negative....You would have to examine every part of the universe....

By the way, you would have to be very, very fast because, who knows, this God, these angels....may be very, very fast, and just after you get somewhere, they may have left for another part of the universe.

This means that you would have to be [[omnipresent]]. You would also have to know everything about every part of the universe, so you would be [[omniscient]]. Then, just at the point when you proved that there was no God, you would also have proven that you were one.<ref>http://www.kennedycommentary.org/default.asp?pg=topicmessage&id=1419</ref>}}

Logician [[Mortimer Adler]] concurs with Dr. Kennedy that the standard definition of atheism which attempts to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition and prominent atheists such as [[Gordon Stein]] and [[Carl Sagan]] have candidly stated that God's existence cannot be disproven.<ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

===Atheism and Reasonable Argument===

Theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument. [[Arguments for the existence of God]] include:
* [[Teleological argument]]: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an [[intelligent design]]er;
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause ''distinct'' from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that [[First Cause]] is God.
* [[Ontological argument]]: Since existence is inherent to the definition of God, it is impossible to conceive of God without conceiving of Him as existing;
* Historical arguments for the existence of God: Arguments stemming from historical accounts and archaeological evidence;
* Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition;

===Atheism and Mass Murder===

[[Image:Stalin.jpg‎ |right|225px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world.
There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."<ref name="Koukl">Koukl, Gregory, [http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527 The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?], 1994</ref>
Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic regimes.<ref name="Koukl" />

Koukl summarized by stating:
{{cquote|It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.<ref name="Koukl" />}}

The [[theory of evolution]] played a prominent role in regards to communism.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3054/</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]]<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref>. Many geneticists were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under Stalin and Mao caused famines and the death of millions<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref>.
[[Image:Solzhenitsyn.jpg‎|thumb|150px|left|[[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]]]
[[Nobel Prize]] winner [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:
{{cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen [[Russia]]: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.''

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>}}

===Atheists in America and Charity===
Charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the [[Barna Group]]:
{{cquote|The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.<ref>[http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272 Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians] ''The Barna Update'', 2007.</ref>}}
[[Image:112006top.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Atheists and agnostics in America generally give significantly less to charity than [[theism|theists]].]]
Arthur C. Brooks wrote:
{{cquote|The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.<ref>Brooks, Arthur C., [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/Religious faith and charitable giving] ''Policy Review'', Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.</ref>}}

ABC News reported the following:
{{cquote|...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."<ref>Stossel, John and Kendall, Kristina [http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2 Who Gives and Who Doesn't?] ABC News, November 28, 2006</ref>}}

===Atheism and Immoral Views===
The Barna Group also found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obsene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]]. <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref>

===Atheism and Questions of Origins===

Atheism provides no useful input in regards to origins. [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]].<ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] since [[World War II]] have been atheists.<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref> In addition, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].

==Atheism and the Existence of Evil==

Atheists state that the existence of evil is a problem for [[theism]] which holds to a good and powerful God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html</ref> [[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil.<ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil.<ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

==Atheism and the Foundation of Modern Science==
[[Image:Bacon5.jpg|thumb|right|175px|In his essay ''Of Atheism'' Sir [[Francis Bacon]] wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."]]
The birth of modern [[science]] occured in Christianized [[Europe]].<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749</ref>
[[Sociology|Sociologist]] [[Rodney Stark]] investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the [[Scientific Revolution]].
In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,<ref name="Origins">Williams, Alex,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ The biblical origins of science], ''Journal of Creation'' 18(2):49–52, August 2004.</ref> only one ([[Edmund Halley]]) was a skeptic and another ([[Paracelsus]]) was a [[pantheism|pantheist]].
The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.<ref name="Origins" />
Sir [[Francis Bacon]], sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."<ref>Bacon, Francis, [http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html Of Atheism]</ref>

[[Image:Cobb.jpg|left|thumb|200px|[[Rodney Stark]]]]‎In ''False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science--it created it'' Stark writes:
{{cquote|Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of [[Roman Empire|Rome]]. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian [[theology]].
Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like [[Voltaire]], [[Denis Diderot|Diderot]], and [[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html</ref>}}

Dr. Charles Thaxton similarly states:
{{cquote|P. E. Hodgson in reviewing [[Stanley Jaki]]'s ''Science and Creation'' said: "Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth17.html</ref>}}

==Ineffectiveness of Atheist Debaters==

===Doug Jesseph===

In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that "the most impressive debater to date" was [[Doug Jesseph]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the [[origin of life]] had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> In 1996, [[John Horgan]] wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref> In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>

===Gordon Stein===

[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as the ''man atheists fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.]]
In 1985, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] and prominent atheist Gordon Stein had a debate at the University of California, Irvine. [[John Frame]] wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the [[transcendental argument for the existence of God]] that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."<ref>http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm</ref> The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate".<ref>http://prosapologian.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/great-debates/</ref><ref>http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf</ref>

===Greg Bahnsen and Michael Martin===

[[Greg Bahnsen|Dr. Greg Bahnsen]] became known as the "man atheists fear most".<ref>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html</ref>
This is because [[Harvard]]-educated [[Michael Martin|Dr. Michael Martin]] was scheduled to debate Bahnsen but pulled out of the debate at the "eleventh hour".
A press release at the time said that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that "...Michael Martin is afraid that he will be publicly humiliated just as his friend and fellow atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, was..."<ref>Anon., [http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/press.htm Press Release]</ref>

Martin later released his [[transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]] (TANG) in 1996 which was rebutted by Christian apologists.<ref>http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/martin_TAG.html</ref>

=== Creationists tend to win creation-evolution debates ===
As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.<ref>[[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref>
Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><ref name="WWD">Fraser, Bill,[http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html Who wins the Debates?]</ref>
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref name="WWD" />
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref name="WWD" />
Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

==Atheism and its Decline as a Theoretical Position==

According to Munich theologian [[Wolfhart Pannenberg]] "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide."<ref> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html</ref> [[Oxford]] scholar [[Alister McGrath]] agrees and has stated that atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat."<ref>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html</ref>

==Atheism in Academia==

There is a book by Richard H. Harvey, entitled "70 Years of Miracles." In it Harvey relates his experience in a Chemistry class at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania in the 1920's.

According to Harvey, his professor Dr. Lee was a [[deist]] who for many years had spent time with each freshman class lecturing against prayer. After a couple of sessions discussing the power of natural laws and the lack of evidence that any god interferes with those laws, Lee would announce that he would drop a flask to the floor and challenged anyone to pray that the flask would remain whole.

Harvey then related that one year, a student finally found the courage to stand up and volunteer to pray. Lee dropped the flask and it rolled off his shoe to the floor without damage. The class cheered and Lee no longer delivered his annual lectures against prayer. [http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_urb_chalk.htm fair use]

== Other Well Known Proponents of Atheism ==

Prominent atheists and atheist schools of thought include:
* Carvaka school: an atheistic and materialistic offshoot of [[Hinduism]] in the 6th century b.c.
* Samkhya school: an atheistic school of classical Indian philosophy, originating in the 6th century b.c.
* Diagoras: Greek philosopher who denied the existence of the Greek pantheon
* Epicurus: Greek philosopher espousing [[materialism]], and stated that, even if the gods exist, they do not interact with humans and are therefore non-existent for all practical purposes;
* Lucretius: Greek philosopher espousing materialism, and stated that man should not believe in the gods because their ideas about the gods and their fear of death made men unhappy;
*[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]: Prominent 20th century atheist philosopher;
*[[Mao Zedong]]: Chinese Communist leader;
*Paul Kurtz: founder of the Council of [[Secular Humanism]]
*Isaac Asimov
*[[David Hume]]
*[[Bertrand Russell]]
*[[Ayn Rand]]
*[[Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Douglas Adams]]
*[[Ernest Hemingway]]

== Atheist population as a percentage of various countries' populations==

Specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. In the United States, however, another 14% of the respondents identified themselves as agnostic indicating that 18% of the U.S. population do not ascribe to theistic views.<ref>In addition, 6% declined to say; and 3% indicated they were unsure of their beliefs.</ref>

== American's view of atheists ==

Research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]
==See Also==
*[[Agnosticism]]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

User talk:FunnyBoy

2007-09-01T03:41:36Z

FunnyBoy: /* 90/10 Commandment */

Concordia Self Study Bible

2007-09-01T03:40:33Z

FunnyBoy: Stub on Bibles used by many Lutherans

The '''Concordia Self-Study Bible''' is a [[Lutheran]] [[study bible]] based on the [[New International Version|NIV]] study bible.

Talk:Abortion

2007-09-01T03:35:10Z

FunnyBoy: Health risks

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

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

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

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== profitability of abortion ==

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

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

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article weight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reply to the above ==

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

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::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)

== Historical view of abortion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Blocked? ==

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

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

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

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

== death rate ==

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

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

== Requested edits ==

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

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

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

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

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

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

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

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Listen up==

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

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

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

=Bizarre fixation on abortion=

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

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

== Confused ==

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

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

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

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion=

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

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

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

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

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

== Quick question ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortion in minnesota ==

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

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

== Health risks ==

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

Eugenie C. Scott

2007-09-01T03:33:32Z

FunnyBoy: Stub on Eugenie C. Scott

'''Eugenie C. Scott''' is the Executive Director of the [[National Center for Science Education]] (NCSE, a non-profit organization that propagandizes for the [[Theory of Evolution|evolution]], and has been equated to a church for atheism.<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_m.html PandasThumb post] by [[PZ Myers]], with comment by Eugenie C. Scott, who announces that she tithes to the NCSE with "...all my honoraria go to NCSE." Ms. Scott charges [http://www.natcenscied.org/ourstaff.asp $2500] Honorarium.</ref>
== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Abortion

2007-09-01T03:23:58Z

FunnyBoy: /* Abortion in minnesota */ Thanks to Aschlafly for adding link to http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf to this article~~~~

Consequentialism

2007-09-01T03:22:26Z

FunnyBoy: Consequentialism (ends justify the means).

'''Consequentialism''' is a philosophical theory summarized as "the ends justify the means."

User talk:FunnyBoy

2007-09-01T03:21:27Z

FunnyBoy: /* Maps */ Consequentialism

User talk:FunnyBoy

2007-09-01T03:18:45Z

FunnyBoy: /* 90/10 Commandment */

Essay:Most Influential Persons

2007-09-01T03:16:58Z

FunnyBoy: Adding (mabe I should just suggest) Thomas Jefferson

1. [[Jesus]]. “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1: 3) That influence is hard to beat.
 2. [[Adam]]. All humans have inherited their sinful nature from Adam.
 3. [[Noah]]. “So the lord said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth… for I am sorry that I have made them.’ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6: 7-8) God preserved his creation for the sake of Noah.
 4. [[Abraham]]. Abraham was the father of the Jews and the Moslems through Isaac and Ishmael respectively. He sacrificed [[Isaac]] on mount Moriah and is and remains a great example of faith.
 5. [[Moses]]. Leader of the Israelites through whom God gave the Ten Commandments.
 6. [[David]]. Second king of Israel whose psalms have great influence to this day.
 7. [[Paul]]. Evangelist and author of many new-testament books.
 8. [[Alexander the Great]]. Conqueror of most of the known world.
 9. Constantine. Roman emperor who spread Christianity.
 10. Julius Caesar. Great Roman dictator whose murder set the stage for the Roman Empire.
 11. [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Third President of the United States, author of the [[Declaration of Independance]], and mover/shaker in the [[Bill of Rights]].
 (Benjamin S.)

 Jesus
 [[Julius Caesar]]
 [[George Washington]]
 [[Isaac Newton]]
 Alexander the Great
 Adam
 Thomas Edison
 Napoleon
 Martin Luther
 Nicolaus Copernicus.
 (submitted by Nathanael H.)

 1. Jesus
 2. Adam ( and Eve)
 3. Abraham
 4. Muhammad
 5. Apostle Paul
 6. Karl Marx
 7. Martin Luther
 8. Charles Darwin
 9. Aristotle
 10. Charles Martel
 (submitted by Daniel M.)

 1. Jesus
 2. Moses
 3. Mohammed
 4. Buddha
 5. Confucius
 6. Alexander the Great
 7. Napoleon
 8. Paul (the Apostle)
 9. Sir Isaac Newton
 10. Louis Pasteur
 (submitted by Duncan B.)

 1. Jesus Christ
 2. Noah
 3. Moses
 4. The Apostle Paul
 5. Socrates
 6. Archimedes
 7. John Locke
 8. Sir Isaac Newton
 9. Alexander the Great
 10. Christopher Columbus
 (submitted by Chris J.)

 1. Jesus
 2. Alexander the Great
 3. Mohammed
 4. Karl Marx
 5. Socrates
 6. Martin Luther
 7. Charles Darwin
 8. Louis Pasteur
 9. William Shakespeare
 10. Martin Luther King, Jr.
 (submitted by Julianna M.)

 1. Jesus Christ: Central figure in Christianity.
 2. Mohammad: Founder of Islam.
 3. Isaac Newton: A physicist who discovered the theory of universal gravitation, the laws of motion, and major developments in mathematics, optics, and thermodynamics.
 4. Moses: A prophet of Judaism and the leader of Israel.
 5. Buddha: The Founder of Buddhism.
 6. Confucius: The Founder of Confucianism.
 7. Albert Einstein: A physicist who discovered the theory of relativity, and Einsteinian physics.
 8. Ts'ai Lun: The inventor of paper.
 9. Johannes Gutenberg: the inventor who developed movable type and printing.
 10. Christopher Columbus: An explorer who led Europe to the Americas.
 (submitted by Tyler M.)

 1. Jesus Christ
 2. Mohammad
 3. Augustus Caesar
 4. Christopher Columbus
 5. Vladimir Lenin
 6. Charles Darwin
 7. Alexander the Great
 8. Albert Einstein
 9. Constantine the Great
 10. Martin Luther
 (submitted by Max M.)

 George Washington
 Benjamin Franklin
 Alexander the Great
 Napoleon
 Thomas Edison
 Mikhail Kalashnikov (inventor of the AK-47)
 Winston Churchill
 Julius Cesar
 Isaac/Ishmael
 And of course, Jesus.
 (submitted by Scott J.)

 1. Jesus (His death opened the gateways of heaven for all mankind.)
 2. Confucius (His system of thought laid the foundation of society in China, Korea, and Japan.)
 3. Muhammad (Founded Islam which for good or ill has been one of the most influential religions both politically and culturally)
 4. Socrates
 5. Henry Ford (built the first popular automobile and started mass production)
 6. Archimedes (laid the foundation for mathematics)
 7. Alexander the Great (spread the Greek language and conquered the world)
 8. Ronald Reagan (parted the Iron Curtain)
 9. Shakespeare (his writings shaped English culture and therefore the World)
 10. Winston Churchill (Inspired the British and their allies to resist the Nazis)
 (Billy M.)

[[category:essay]]

LexisNexis

2007-09-01T03:14:47Z

FunnyBoy: stub on LexisNexis

LexisNexis is a for profit service that allows customers to search sources from the New York Times to Califronia Case law.<ref>[http://w3.nexis.com/sources/ Searchable Directory of Online Sources].</ref> [[Ann Coulter]] uses LexisNexis as a research aid while writing books.
==References==
<references/>

Talk:Abortion

2007-08-31T02:28:09Z

FunnyBoy: Abortion in minnesota

User talk:FunnyBoy

2007-08-24T15:06:41Z

FunnyBoy: correction

George Clinton (disambiguation)

2007-08-24T03:54:11Z

FunnyBoy:

'''George Clinton''' may refer to:
*[[George Clinton]]: Fifth Vice President of the United States
*[[George Clinton (funk musician)|George Clinton]]: Funk musician.

George Clinton (disambiguation)

2007-08-24T03:53:36Z

FunnyBoy: disambiguation

'''George Clinton''' may refer to:
*[[George Clinton]], fifth Vice President of the United States
*[[George Clinton (funk musician)|George Clinton]] Funk musician.

George Clinton

2007-08-24T03:52:27Z

FunnyBoy:

{{President
|image=George clinton.jpg
|office=vice
|seq=4
|term_start=March 4, 1805
|term_end=April 20, 1812
|party=
|pres=Thomas Jefferson
|pres_dates=1805-1809
|2pres=James Madison
|2pres_dates=1809-1812
|previous=Aaron Burr
|next=Elbridge Gerry
|birth_date=July 26, 1739
|birth_place=Little Britain, New York
|death_date=April 20, 1812
|death_place=Washington, D.C.
|spouse=Sarah Cornelia Tappen
|religion=
}}
:For other George Clintons, see [[George Clinton (disambiguation)]]. 
'''George Clinton''' was the fifth Vice President of the United States, serving under [[James Madison]], from March 4, 1813 AD until his death a year and a half later. He was the first Vice Presidential candidate to be under the 12th Amendment. He cast the tie breaking vote against rechartering the first Bank of the United States. <ref> [[Fandex]], Workman Publishing. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{USVicePresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, George}}
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]

George Clinton

2007-08-24T03:52:16Z

FunnyBoy:

{{President
|image=George clinton.jpg
|office=vice
|seq=4
|term_start=March 4, 1805
|term_end=April 20, 1812
|party=
|pres=Thomas Jefferson
|pres_dates=1805-1809
|2pres=James Madison
|2pres_dates=1809-1812
|previous=Aaron Burr
|next=Elbridge Gerry
|birth_date=July 26, 1739
|birth_place=Little Britain, New York
|death_date=April 20, 1812
|death_place=Washington, D.C.
|spouse=Sarah Cornelia Tappen
|religion=
}}
For other George Clintons, see [[George Clinton (disambiguation)]]. 
'''George Clinton''' was the fifth Vice President of the United States, serving under [[James Madison]], from March 4, 1813 AD until his death a year and a half later. He was the first Vice Presidential candidate to be under the 12th Amendment. He cast the tie breaking vote against rechartering the first Bank of the United States. <ref> [[Fandex]], Workman Publishing. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{USVicePresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, George}}
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]

Certiorari

2007-08-24T03:47:09Z

FunnyBoy:

'''Certiorari''' is a writ of review issued by a higher court to a lower court. It is a means of getting an appellate court to review a lower court's decision. If an appellate court grants a writ of certiorari, it agrees to take the appeal. (Sometimes this is referred to as "granting cert.") See also [[Writ of Certiorari]].

The votes of only four out of nine Justices, not a majority (five out of nine), are required by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to "grant cert." and thereby accept appeal of a case.

If the Court declines cert., then five votes rather than four are required to grant cert. on a motion for reconsideration of that denial. That rarely happens, but did in 2007 in the high-profile case of ''[[Boumediene v. Bush]]''.
[[category:legal terms]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Certiorari

2007-08-24T03:46:50Z

FunnyBoy:

'''Certiorari''' is a writ of review issued by a higher court to a lower court. A means of getting an appellate court to review a lower court's decision. If an appellate court grants a writ of certiorari, it agrees to take the appeal. (Sometimes this is referred to as "granting cert.") See also [[Writ of Certiorari]].

The votes of only four out of nine Justices, not a majority (five out of nine), are required by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to "grant cert." and thereby accept appeal of a case.

If the Court declines cert., then five votes rather than four are required to grant cert. on a motion for reconsideration of that denial. That rarely happens, but did in 2007 in the high-profile case of ''[[Boumediene v. Bush]]''.
[[category:legal terms]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]