Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Abortion

2009-04-12T00:44:59Z

JohnHC: /* The fetus in the picture... */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== profitability of abortion ==

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

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

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article weight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reply to the above ==

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

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical view of abortion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Blocked? ==

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

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

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

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

== death rate ==

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

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

== Requested edits ==

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

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

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

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

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

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

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

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

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Listen up==

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

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

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

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

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

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

== Confused ==

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

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

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

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

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

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

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

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

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

== Quick question ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortion in minnesota ==

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

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

== Health risks ==

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

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

== China ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Hippocrates' Oath==

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

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

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

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

==Image==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Picture? ==

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

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

== Abortion and Suicide ==

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

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

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

== Fetus wrong ==

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

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

== Pictures Generated ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremyh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Morality of Abortion ==

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

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

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

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

== The Bible and Abortion ==

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

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

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

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

== One-sided graphic display ==

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

== What about women. ==

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

== Abortion is murder ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortion is a million dollar industry ==

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

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

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

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

== How about high quality video? ==

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

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

User talk:JohnHC

2009-02-23T00:11:24Z

JohnHC:

{{welcome}}

This is an administrative warning: If you want a page moved, tell us about it and we'll consider it. But our decision on the movement of pages is final. And don't you dare move a page, or copy a page to a different title—not unless and until you ever get the right to do that, and that's a decision for Andrew Schlafly to make, not you.

I will now revert every one of your poor-man's page moves.

If you interfere with my work again, I will block you for that. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:01, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:Rawr. Well, I was just thinking that if Obama is at Barack Hussein Obama, I thought McCain should be at the full name, but I forgot this was the Republican's wiki to rant about how they are superior. My mistake.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 19:06, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::Your first mistake was in arrogating to yourself certain administrative functions when you are nowhere near being granted such powers.
::And your second mistake is in the above snidery. Watch. Your. Step.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:08, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:::Does driving count as a step? Sorry, had to say that. I'll stop now and be serious.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 19:11, 22 February 2009 (EST)

User talk:JohnHC

2009-02-23T00:06:30Z

JohnHC:

Talk:Abortion

2009-02-22T23:58:53Z

JohnHC: /* The fetus in the picture... */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== profitability of abortion ==

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

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

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article weight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reply to the above ==

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

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical view of abortion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Blocked? ==

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

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

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

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

== death rate ==

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

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

== Requested edits ==

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

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

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

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

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

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

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

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

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Listen up==

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

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

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

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

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

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

== Confused ==

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

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

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

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

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

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

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

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

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

== Quick question ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortion in minnesota ==

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

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

== Health risks ==

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

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

== China ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Hippocrates' Oath==

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

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

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

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

==Image==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Picture? ==

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

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

== Abortion and Suicide ==

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

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

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

== Fetus wrong ==

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

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

== Pictures Generated ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremyh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Morality of Abortion ==

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

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

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

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

== The Bible and Abortion ==

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

== One-sided graphic display ==

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

== What about women. ==

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

== Abortion is murder ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortion is a million dollar industry ==

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

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

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

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

Talk:John Sidney McCain III

2009-02-22T23:57:56Z

JohnHC: New page: This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly n...

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== What is this page going to be? ==

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:TK|TK]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

::Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Need for personal/family section ==

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. [[Duncan Hunter]] is the only other candidate who can claim even one. [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

== RE: Political Record ==

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Fundraising ==

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces ==

{{cquote|McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.}}
This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Another Image==
Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Hate speech laws==
McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

: Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.

::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

::::This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.

== Technically ==

He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion==

This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: touché--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jared from Subway, like the changes?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources CP Commandment #1]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=472712&oldid=472465 here] on your own? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== 2nd paragraph, first sentence ==

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

==2007 Fundraising==
This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

JP, I have made a few edits, albeit minor ones, to some existing pages so as to honor the 90/10 policy. My apologies for not taking note earlier. I'm in the process of making more edits. As for this paragraph, I'm a little wary of removing something like this (granted, it's not here anymore so I can't see what it said) because there was a lot of controversy surrounding McCain's fundraising protocol that was addressed by both liberal and credible sources. Do we really want to sweep something under the rug because it doesn't look pretty? That's stooping to liberal level...Even Wikipedia addresses the apparently negative aspects surrounding Democratic figureheads, thus if we don't do the same, my concern is that we are going to be seen as less than Wikipedia. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 14:47, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Re: Reversion==
"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Immigration==
Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine with me--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Conflicting Facts==
Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Polygamist==

Whoa. He was married to his first wife at the same time that he recieved a marriage certificate? Does this mean that, legally speaking, he was married to two people at the same time? Or, at the very least, does it mean he was in(volved with) Cindy before he had divorced his wife? I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, I swear on that, but I was just curious because if so, I think it speaks a lot about his commitment to her and creates a better picture of his character. Thanks. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 20:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The technical term is bigamy, since he was only married to two women at the same time. And yes, he was married to both of them at the same time. [[User:Knullmaskin|Knullmaskin]] 12:36, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== NOT A BIGAMIST! ==

This article seems to have borrowed some lines from the Bush smear campaign. John McCain divorced his first wife Carol (April 2, 1980) and married Cindy (May 17, 1980) about six weeks apart. There is, and never has been, any controversy about his marriage except for those who say that he did not work hard to resolve issues with his first wife, and that he had little care for her.

Those statements are all lies. McCain came back from Vietnam a changed man. He was eager to rebuild his life and wanted to begin a strong, bold career change. Politics came as second nature to him, and as some have stated,<ref>Alexander, Paul. ''John McCain: Man of the People'' 2003. pg. 93</ref> McCain was resolute on having more children and on improving his condition. His wife, who was struggling with the effects of a life-changing car accident, was unable to meet many of the stressful challenges that faced McCain after the war, and their marriage was said to have fell apart mutually.
<references/>
--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain quote ==

'''When questioned during the 2000 presidential campaign about his experience in captivity, he replied, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Later, when asked about whether he meant an ethnic slur, he replied, "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL</ref>'''

I removed this quote from the 2000 election section. It is unimportant trivia, and in many ways, it only represents a journalist's spin on an ambiguous statement. More importantly, it reveals little to nothing about the political issues or beliefs that McCain had at the time. Nonetheless, I am sure there are those who will disagree and who want this quote re-instated, so post feedback below:

:It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. Where's the ambiguity and how exactly would you spin it? I think anyone who uses such racial slurs reveals something about themselves. What section of his entry would you like to put this in instead? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::The statement was spun against him by Bush and many liberal pundits then and now. What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate; you are suggesting that what he said was a slur directed at race, while he explicitly stated that it was not. Also, it is put forward without context or resolution, especially because he apologized and it is written in a PR format. Rather, it may help to identify the basis that it holds in the context of the 2000 election, ex: California was considered a swing state in the primaries, for instance.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the use of a slur, however you want to deem it was directed, is important, and I attempted to put it within the time line you insist upon. As far as my views on those who use slurs, how do you feel about them? Do you condone the use of a slur word, even when the user has to go on to spin/explain that it wasn't directed at a race? He even acknowledges that it's offensive, "in language that may offend some people." If he's not afraid to use the term, then I think people should be aware of that fact. Perhaps our ideas of what a dictionary is are different. I believe it should be a fact-filled resource, and you'd prefer to put those aside and use laudatory statements instead. Maybe we can compromise and just find a good section for the remarks, perhaps a Quotes section? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::First and foremost, this is not a personal matter between us. We are working together on an encyclopedia, and your attempts to call me racist or culturally insensitive are unwarranted, uncivil, and downright disgusting. Slandering others is not and should not be your reason for being here. That being said, I would like to remind you that McCain was a longstanding supporter of Vietnam-American relations, and cultivated a very favorable opinion among Vietnamese Americans. The statement in question was not a matter or racism, but rather, or political correctness. Apparently, you haven't made the distinction, as you said "If he's not afraid to use the term, I think that's a problem" whereas the more factual approach would be "he still has hatred towards his prison guards, and expresses it in ways that are reckless". Furthermore, given the coverage of the 2000 election, I would find it hard to justify placing the quote inside that section; there simply isn't any context explaining the significance or historical background. Perhaps if the campaign was explained in better terms, and I mean far more extensively, this statement could be put in the section within appropriate context.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 09:31, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::You were actually the one who first made this a personal matter when you stated, "What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate;" I wasn't even making a judgment about the quote in the entry. I was including the information so that other people could come to their own conclusions. If you don't want it in the 2000 election section, perhaps we should put it amongst his Vietnam service section. I think immediately concluding his POW section would be a good spot, as it directly relates to his captivity and prison guards. Would you like to place it there or shall I? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:40, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and can you please point to the spot where I called you a racist or culturally insensitive? I don't recall using either of those words, so I'd be interested in you locating that quote. If, on the other hand, you can't find the spot where I called you either of those, then I do expect an apology, as it was an unwarranted, uncivil, and completely false accusation on your part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:42, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

== Czechoslovakia ==

Since the article mentions McCain's positions on Iraq and Iran, how about mentioning his views on [[Czechoslovakia]]? He's mentioned twice in speeches in the last week concerns about events going on right now in Czechoslovakia.... (Czechoslovakia has not existed at all since 1993).

== Ctrooprers edits ==

Although I reverted the edits, I tend to agree with them as the sections he removed are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Certainly they would be appropriate in a very lengthy essay about the presidential compaign but I don't think it's necessary here. I suggest we try to get a consensus over the next 48 hours and so if no-one objects I'll delete the comments.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:Some of them are valid in the context that McCain has been getting more press lately regarding his gaffes, not because they are simple mistakes, but because of concerns about his age and fitness to serve for the next 4-8 years. The Iran/Al-Qaeda gaffe was noteworthy because Senator Lieberman had to interrupt him and correct him in front of reporters. In the past week he also talked about tensions on "the Iraq/Afghanistan border". McCain has made comments I can research (read them on Huffington) denying his prior positions and quotes, which are either complete reversals of position or lapses in memory. Are these actual signs of unfitness? I'm not sure about that, but including them in the McCain article under the heading "Concerns about age" would be entirely appropriate since it has been discussed in the press ans Sunday talk shows as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I disagree that these should be filed under "Concerns about age", because I don't think they're necessarily age-related. Rather, Shia v. Sunni is particularly important, and for him to make the mistake twice brings questions to his knowledge and criticisms of Obama over foreign policy. But to put them under "concerns about age" trivializes them and makes it seem petty, IMO. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I absolutely object. I think two of the quotes are very appropriate for the article. The first is relevant in that Obama was being criticized here for the use of the word "bomb" as opposed to "bomb'''s'''", and saying "57 states" instead of "47 states". Also, McCain's criticism of Obama and foreign policy, when McCain has repeatedly confused Sunni and Shia, and who makes up the majority of the Iranian population and Al Qaeda. If you want to delete the second one, I won't be terribly opposed to it. And the third is important in that much of McCain's campaign centers around his military service. When Wes Clark made his remarks recently about military service as a qualification for president, there was an uproar. I think it is, therefore, very relevant when McCain talks about military service---especially when he's said something that flies in the face of what he now claims. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::Re the Obama Criticism. Remember that that was in the main page, which is basically just a trivia/blog section, whereas this article is part of the encyclopedia proper, and thus must be accurate and trustworthy like all the other pages are. Therefore I don't think its fair to compare the Obama gaffe with that here. I suggest that the first should be left in as being relevant to his ability to perform the presidency, but the second and third should be removed as trivia.

:::The second example, misstating "57 states" instead of "47 states" was not part of the trivia/blog section, but is in the article. And it wasn't a misstatement, but he stated it on two consecutive days, so you know his campaign corrected him after the first instance.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:29, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

While I commend everyone for your work and interest, we should remember this generic article is about John McCain. Saying who he is, how he got there, and what he believes is fine, but individual elements and speeches during his Presidential run should probably be handled under the Presidential campaign articles. It could certainly be grouped there in ways that could flow more easily. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Mention of NY Times Op-Ed rejection under Iraq Heading==

I'm not sure the rejection of a single Op-Ed piece merits a mention in an encyclopedia article on McCain - It's already covered in CP under [[Liberal Bias]] anyway, and seems trivial in this context. If its inclusion here can be justified, then it should be moved to a different heading like "McCain and the Media" instead of "Iraq", since the nature of the Op-Ed piece the Times was looking for spanned more than Iraq. It should also be revised, because in it's current form it's misleading as to why the original piece was rejected. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, its trivial fluff and it's prejudicial content is greater than its probative value.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::I have removed the section. The story itself is irrelevant to McCain's political beliefs, and in consideration of the longstanding cooperation that the New York Times has provided to the Senator, I feel that there is no wrongdoing or substantial political swipe connected to this. I appreciate the well-cited, researched information, but placing the day-to-day events of what is included or excluded in a newspaper does not connect well with the article. It would be more appropriate for the Presidential campaign, but even in that context, it is rather weak and inconsequential.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 11:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain vs. Obama ==

Based on the obvious bias towards McCain shown in the difference between the two articles, why not just SAY that Conservapedia endorses McCain? Both men have flaws; if you lead with the flaws in the Obama article, and suppress McCain's flaws due to bias, how is this an encyclopedia and how is it "trustworthy?" Yes, I am a liberal, but I may vote for McCain based on experience, but until the election, it would be nice to see unbiased versions of the articles. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:16, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:We are keeping the McCain article as unbiased as possible as a stand-alone piece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::And the Obama article? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Should be discussed on the Obama page. We do the best we can with the John McCain article on this, the John McCain page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the original question pertained to both the McCain and Obama article. You only answered about the McCain article, and quite clearly stated about keeping it as unbiased as possible. You have the ability to give an answer to me about the Obama article here, but specifically chose not to relate it to the question, but instead said take it elsewhere. Since the original question pertained to both, I hope that you will answer both---or let me know and I'll post it on the Obama talk page and you can answer it there instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::This is the McCain article. I answer questions on John McCain and how to make this article the best it can be. Feel free to post the question on Obama's talk page since, ostensibly, that is the article where you have the most concerns. As I no longer frequent that article, you will not receive a reply from me. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==Divorce==

My edit to the Personal Life section of the article should not be reverted, as it is a valid contribution to the page. It is part of his personal life, and it is note-worthy. In the interest of keeping the article unbiased, both the positive and negative should be included. --[[User:AlrightThen|AlrightThen]] 20:48, 8 August 2008 (CDT)

:Hmm, so men don't cheat on their wives anymore. They "have difficulties with" them. Glad you guys are working so hard to defend the institution of marriage. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 19:55, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Both of the above comments are incomplete, and it's impossible to glean what your points are. Try to be clearer. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

This issue has come up in the past. Please see my talk page under McCain Edit and the reasons why your edit is inappropriate. Then please move on to constructive edits. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bridget McCain ==

There seems to be conflicting information regarding Bridget McCain's birth year (1991 or 1993). According to the other reference Jpratt uses, "rightpundits.com", the site states, "Cindy McCain was touring 3rd world countries with Mother Teresa in 1991 to provide medical attention to needy children. During this tour, Cindy and Mother Teresa toured an orphanage in Bangladesh where Cindy picked up a baby that was only a few months old." Also, under the Bio section, "Bridget McCain was born in 1991 in Bangladesh." [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1636 Bridget McCain is John McCain's Daughter]. Any suggestions for a way to resolve the differing information? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: The India link wasn't enough for ya? Google search 1-70k for 1993, 1-58k for 1991-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The India link, which was confusing and not very clear, I would match with the rightpundits site I provided. So two sites with differing information. And if the Google results were 70k to 12, then I would consider that evidence. But 70k v. 58k isn't a strong case for one or the other. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:51, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, and if you google "Bridget McCain" 1991, you get 779 results. Doing the same with 1993 yields 546 results. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, if your Google search is limited to english only sites, you get 58k Bridget McCain 1991 and you get 71k Bridget McCain 1993-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion for an administrator==
This article has become so long, I think it would look nicer if there were more pictures. I was hoping one of you could upload these into the article. http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/rice-mccain-741881.jpg under "foreign policy" and this under "2008 Presidential campaign." http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg If not that's fine, but I would appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

: You need to check out who owns those pictures first and whether it's OK with them for others to copy them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I just got them from a blog while searching Google images. Hard for me to find out who "owns" them. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

O.K., I emailed Top News.com, which is where I got this image, http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg. They said I could use it because it's under "creative commons license." [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

== education ==

On the main page, much was made of Obama's lack of educational achievements. [http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/] That article mentions that McCain actually graduated in the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy. I think that this information that should go into the McCain article. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 15:38, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:[[Obama]] article: [...]He graduated magna cum laude with his J.D. in 1991[...]
:So yes, ASchlafly is censoring the truth, even though his edit summary claims that Obama didn't release his college performance. ''Magna cum laude'' is a really good performance. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::You will have to take it up with Andy. Based on the idea that Obama has not opened up his college record for review, a decision was made to remove that information on McCain. It it were permissible, I would want to see the wording, "near the bottom of his class". It seems less sensational that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You mean [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ADesk%2FAbuse&diff=513169&oldid=510916 this Andy]? Yeah, right, the only result I can think of is hitting my head against a brick wall. Since when does Obama's college record have anything to do with disclosing McCain's? Obama says "57 states", it's jumped all over. Obama says "my Muslim faith", its jumped all over. McCain doesn't remember how many houses he owns, but its vehemently denied into his article. Pretty simple to see what's going on, but I shouldn't be the one (powerless) who stands up to it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::That is just b.s. SamuelHTD. Obama need not disclose but since McCains has, it is fair game? This is a site with conservative POV but that doesn't mean liberals have not included 'not-in-the-best-light' statements on McCain's page. Do we need to include every liberal attack against McCain? Hell no. BTW, I am not expecting your return comment since you're gone. ta ta-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm baaaack, your [[parthian shot]] failed. If you don't include the information because the other candidate didn't disclose yadda yadda, what's with the hubbub over Obama's "alleged" birth, with birth certificate provided, compared to McCain's ''lack of'' birth certificate, and doesn't even show on the [http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/PH2008050201443.jpg record of births]? Going by your logic, we should either a) post that McCain can't prove his birth record, or b) remove all the gossip and ideology regarding Obama's birth? [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 10:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::For what it's worth, the [[Joe Biden]] article mentions quite a bit about his academic record, including the current cost of the high school he attended over 40 years ago, and the fact that he graduated ''"from the Syracuse University College of Law in 1968 near the bottom of his class"''.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

=="Allard's amendment"==

In the Same-sex marriage section, it includes a quote where McCain refers to "Senator Allard's amendment", but the section makes no reference before this to what Senator Allard's amendment is. Perhaps the section could be cleaned up a bit, and a short description included. I know many people can derive a general sense of the bill's content through context, but younger readers might find this a bit confusing, and I didn't want to perform major "article surgery" without an idea of what the "operation" should be! [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:22, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
:Many of those sections near the ends need some work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
::Agreed. I'll try to clean them up today.

===Prisoner-of-War===

:::Also, does this need to be written this way "Prisoner-of-War"? I'm not used to seeing it written this way, with hyphens and capitalization. It's fine to keep War capitalized in the title, but it's written as "prisoner of war" in the article too, and it seems to me that it's not a proper noun. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prisoner+of+war] [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:42, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

== Biased introduction paragraph ==

Whether or not you support John McCain should not bias your summary of John McCain. Using phrases like "prominent maverick" or "influential leader" should be cited if there is actual solid proof of their validity. If not they should be removed since they have been presented as facts. I am not saying they are not true I am only saying they are misleading without proper citation. Any claim one makes should be cited if one is presenting it to be fact.

:Hopefully there is information in the article itself that would help one to see the validity of the statements. It would be hard to 'cite' the entire article. That John McCain was considered to be the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate on the 2004 ticket should tell you that he's a maverick. As far as being a leader, any of the numerous bills that he has put forth and pushed for already show that. When you tackle an issue like campaign finance reform, that would annoy both parties, and you actually get it to take a position of prominence under your leadership, then we are allowed to acknowledge that as leadership. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:06, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Confederate flag ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=539642&oldid=539635 What is the reason for this revert?] [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:19, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:It was somewhat negative.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 18:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was surprised by your response until I looked at your edit history. I am trying to have a serious discussion here and help build an encyclopedia. I doubt anyone is interested in helping you be snarky. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== McCain & Evolution ==
JakobL says McCain is clearly against evolution. I think he understands it but feels not appropriate for Science class. What says you? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

This link:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/john_mccain_on_teaching_evolut.html
indicates that McCain is something of a theistic evolutionist. - [[User:Martib|Martib]] 14:25, 4 November 2008 (EST)

John McCain's view of evolution is not "nuanced." He is a darwinist who rejects God's influence in our world. We criticize Obama for being muslim- but John McCain is hardly a conservative and denies the very nature of a Christian God. Let's call a spade a spade. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==
As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 19:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== "That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." ==

Injured=Wounded=Harmed. Republicans are retarded, that's why he lost.[[User:JohnObama|JohnObama]] 18:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

John Sidney McCain III

2009-02-22T23:56:40Z

JohnHC: Equality much?

{{Officeholder
|name=John McCain
|image=Casmier.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Carol Shepp (1965-1980) [[Cindy McCain|Cindy Lou Hensley]] (1980-present)
|religion=Baptist
|offices=

{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Arizona
|terms=January 3, 1987-present
|preceded=Barry Goldwater
|former=n
|succeeded=Incumbent (no successor)
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Arizona
|district=1st
|terms=January 3, 1983 – January 3, 1987
|preceded=John Jacob Rhodes Jr.
|former=y
|succeeded=John Jacob Rhodes III
}}
}}
'''John Sidney McCain III''' (born in the U.S. [[Panama Canal]] Zone, August 29, 1936 )<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m0003http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Button_enter.png Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref>, was the Republican candidate for President in 2008, is a prominent maverick politician and [[Vietnam War]] hero, and he is the senior [[United States Senate|Senator]] of [[Arizona]]. He has been an influential leader in American politics since 1986, when he ran for office attacking corruption, attacking [[pork barrel]] spending and working for [[campaign finance reform]]. He was defeated by [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, and lost to [[Barack Obama]] in the 2008 Presidential Election.

As a pilot for the [[United States Navy]] and former Prisoner-of-War ([[POW]]), he served in the military for 22 years.<ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]</ref> McCain, a [[Baptist]],<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296973,00.html</ref> has impressive credentials on issues of foreign policy and national security, which have propelled him in the forefront of national politics as both an outspoken voice for the United States military and as a Presidential contender for the Republican Party since 1993.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref><ref>[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NATIONWORLD/803050441/0/LOCAL1901 ''McCain clinches GOP nomination; Huckabee bows out''] 5 March 2008 IndyStar.com</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255535,00.html John McCain Announces Plans for '08 Presidential Candidacy on 'Late Night With David Letterman'], Associated Press, 1 March 2007</ref> If McCain had been elected President, he would have been the first President who was ever a POW of a foreign conflict.

==Early Life==
McCain's family has a long history of military service, including ancestors who fought as army soldiers in the Indian Wars, [[American Revolutionary War]], [[War of 1812]], for both the Union and the Confederate States of America during the [[American Civil War]], and in [[World War I]]. Both his father and grandfather were high-ranking United States Navy admirals. In addition, McCain's two sons are currently serving in the U.S. Navy.

In 1951, the McCain family moved to Northern [[Virginia]] and he attended Episcopal High School, a private preparatory boarding school in Alexandria. McCain was on the wrestling team and went on to graduate in 1954. He later joined the U.S. Naval Academy and graduated in 1958.

==Military career==
[[Image:McCain 1965.jpg|left|thumb|200px|McCain photographed in 1965]]
McCain served heroically in the [[United States Navy]] from 1958 to 1981. He spent two and a half years as a naval aviator in training at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in [[Florida]] and the Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in [[Texas]]. By 1967, McCain was a veteran pilot aboard the [[USS Forrestal|USS ''Forrestal'']] [[aircraft carrier]] off the coast of Vietnam. On 29 July 1967, while preparing to take off on a bombing run over North Vietnam, a missile accidentally fired from another plane, hitting the fuel tanks on McCain's aircraft and triggering explosions and a fire. McCain escaped from his plane by crawling onto the nose of the aircraft and diving on to the ship's deck which was ablaze from burning fuel. His attempt to rescue a fellow pilot whose flight suit was on fire was prevented when McCain was blown over by further explosions. When the fire was contained 24 hours later, 134 men had been killed and hundreds more injured. It was called the worst non-combat-related accident in U.S. naval history.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=526451&in_page_id=1811 ''The coronation of the ultimate survivor, John McCain''] 5 March 2008 [[Daily Mail]]</ref>

===Prisoner-Of-War (1967 - 1973)===

On October 26, 1967, as McCain was flying over [[Hanoi]]'s Thermal Power Plant during his 23rd bombing mission, he was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. He had just released his bombs when [[A-4 Skyhawk|his plane]] was shot down by a [[surface-to-air missile]]. As he ejected, unconscious from the accident, he broke his knee and both arms and descended by parachute into a lake. When he floated ashore, Vietnamese locals spit and kicked him, nearly killing him. The police took him to Hoa Loa Prison where he was held in solitary captivity without medical attention or sufficient food. During brutal interrogations, he was asked for information in return for medical care. McCain refused, giving only his name and date of birth. When it was discovered that he was the son of a top U.S. Admiral, he was given medical care. Hospital personnel never believed he would survive, as he had large wounds and weighed a mere 100 lbs. He also had completely white hair, a product of accelerated aging under harsh conditions. Nonetheless, his health improved and McCain was held as a Prisoner-Of-War (POW) at the [[Hanoi Hilton]]. As a prisoner, guards tortured him with frequent beatings and painful contortions, breaking his teeth and bones. <ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref>

After months of beating sessions and intense interrogations, McCain was psychologically and physically weakened. At one point, he was forced to sign a statement which made claims exonerating his captors of inhumane treatment. The paper was intended for use as propaganda, but in all their subsequent attempts for promoting a "humane" image of the POW camp, McCain worked his hardest to thwart them. In 1971, four years from his capture, he was placed with 20 to 30 other Americans in better treatment. They were allowed to celebrate Christian holidays, including Christmas. McCain, who served as an impromptu chaplain, recalled that during their services, men cried; "They were tears of joy that for the first time... we were able to celebrate Christmas together."<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref> In light of his father's high military status, McCain was offered early release, which he adamantly refused in honor of the "First in, first out" clause of the POW Code of Conduct.

On March 14, 1973, after five and a half years of imprisonment, McCain was released alongside 106 other pilots under the Nixon administration. McCain received a heartfelt reception at the White House and was pronounced a war hero and eminent voice for the Vietnam War. Awards from the military followed, including the Legion of Merit, a [[Silver Star]], a [[Bronze Star]], a [[Purple Heart]], the [[Distinguished Flying Cross]], and the Vietnamese Legion of Honor.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. Published 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-47545-9</ref> McCain's severe war injuries prevent him today from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. <ref>http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml</ref>

===Return to the Navy (1973 - 1981)===

The Vietnam War and his military service remained strong in McCain's. He immediately wanted to rejoin the Navy, and spent years preparing with excruciating physical therapy and a year of study in the Naval War College, where he attacked the liberal anti-war movement for weakening the morale of his fellow POWs.<ref>Kirkpatrick, David D. "[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/14/america/15pows.php In '74 thesis, the seeds of McCain's war views.]" The New York Times (June 15, 2008) p. A1.]</ref> With his extensive experience in the Navy's Aviation division, he was selected to reform the flying fleet as Commanding Officer. John McCain quickly transformed his crew's personnel, which had been underfunded in the post-Vietnam era. Carl Smith, who served under McCain, stated, "He immediately began making changes. He fired people, and he replaced people at the top who he thought were not being as effective as he wanted them to be. He wanted real leadership. He wanted the squadron to come to life."<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. pg. 57</ref> Many in his staff were disappointed to have him leave, and praised his work in promoting efficiency.<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People.</ref>

During his assignment to the Senate as the Navy's liaison, 1977-81, McCain began to join the ranks of politicians. He transformed the position from a rather unimportant post into one of authority and respect{{fact}}, gaining allies in the Senate. The Senate liaison role provided a learning experience in national security policy and foreign affairs.

==Political career==
===Congressional (1982 - 1986)===

Prior to entering public service, McCain worked in [[Phoenix]] for his father-in-law's company, Hensley & Co, which was an Anheuser-Busch beer wholesaler and distributor. With nagging injuries and limited physical mobility, McCain realized he would never become a four-star general like his forefathers.<ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography (1936-)]</ref> Some biographers argue that he shifted into politics so that he could achieve the equivalent in politics, leading to his Senatorial career. After gaining support from local business leaders, he ran for a congressional seat for Arizona's 1st congressional district as a Republican in 1982. His [[liberal]] opponents labeled him as a "carpetbagger". McCain responded to a voter making the charge of "carpetbagging" saying,

{{cquote|Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.}}

With the endorsements of local newspapers, McCain easily won the election. In 1983, he became President of the Republican freshman class of representatives. At the time, he largely supported Reagan's hard stance against the [[Soviet Union]], his tax cuts and matters on Indian Affairs. He did, however, break with the President on the decision to place a U.S. military presence in Lebanon, saying {{cquote|''I do not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon; I believe the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to leave.''<ref>Alexander, Paul. John McCain: Man of the People. pg. 100</ref>}} During his four years in [[Congress]], McCain and his wife Cindy had three children.

===Senatorial (1986 - Present)===
[[Image:Reagan mccain.jpg|left|thumb|300px|3/3/1987 President Reagan and Nancy Reagan greet John McCain in the Blue Room during a dinner for newly elected members of the 100th Congress]]
When Republican and [[conservative]] icon [[Barry Goldwater]] retired from the United States Senate in Arizona in 1986, Congressman McCain announced his candidacy for the seat. He easily won the election, defeating his Democratic opponent Richard Kimball by 20 percentage points. When entering the Senate, he became a member of the powerful Armed Services Committee and he also joined the Commerce Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee. During the 1988 Presidential Election, McCain was named chairman of Veterans for Bush. In 1991, Senator McCain became part of the "Keating Five" scandal, where McCain and four other Senators (all Democrats) were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Charles Keating Jr. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined that McCain's involvement was minimal and was criticized for using "poor judgement".

===="Maverick" Image in the Senate====
John McCain has gained a reputation as a "maverick" for his sponsorship of many bills and leadership on almost every issue. Starting in 1994, he worked with Democratic [[Wisconsin]] Senator [[Russ Feingold]] on campaign finance reform. The McCain-Feingold bill banned "soft money". It passed and was signed into law on November 6th, 2002, by President Bush. In the 1990's, McCain gained attention for his strong opposition to pork barrel spending. He championed the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, which gave the President the power to veto individual spending items. However, in 1998, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled the act unconstitutional.

Voteview.com rated McCain as the second most conservative Senator in the 109th Congress (Jan. 2005 - Jan. 2007).<ref>http://voteview.com/SEN109.HTM</ref>

John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues. He voted with the Bush administration 95% of the time in 2007, according to Congressional Quarterly's "Presidential Support Scores". <ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/512/ Politifact fact checks McCain's voting support</ref> Issues include making the Bush tax cuts permanent (even though he originally opposed and voted against them), energy independence, winning the war in Iraq, reforming Social Security, and continuing and expanding Bush's supply-side economic policies.

In 2008, McCain asked for $0 in earmarks.<ref>[http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008_database 2008 ''Pig Book''], Council for Citizens Against Government Waste</ref>The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 100% in 2007 (88% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

==Presidential Politics==
===2000 Presidential Campaign===
McCain launched his first campaign for President in 2000, when he challenged then-[[Texas]] Governor [[George W. Bush]] for the Republican nomination. McCain's campaign was surprisingly strong. By ignoring the [[Iowa Caucus]], he was able to win the [[New Hampshire]] Primary by nineteen percentage points. He then won the [[Michigan]] Primary. However, he went on to lose [[South Carolina]] and 9 out of the 13 [[Super Tuesday]] states. McCain withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

After withdrawing, McCain announced that he supported the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the top of the South Carolina statehouse. During the primary he had stated he believed it was an issue for the state to decide, which was his true belief from a federal standpoint, but not his personal belief. He felt by withholding her personal belief that he had erred. He explained that he lived his life by being open and felt he should have been at that time and apologized for not speaking up sooner. <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/19/mccain.sc/</ref>

===During Bush Presidency 2001 - 2008 ===
Following McCain's loss in the 2000 Presidential primary and reports of dirty tricks in [[South Carolina]]<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/ The anatomy of a smear campaign, March 21, 2004</ref><ref>http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2007/12/30/top-romney-advisor-tied-to-anonymous-attacks-of-previous-presidential-primary/ Top Romney advisor tied to anonymous attacks of previous presidential primary, December 30, 2007</ref>, McCain began to disagree with President Bush on many issues, such as tax cuts, climate change, and gun legislation. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], McCain wrote legislation that created the 9/11 Commission, while he and Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings co-sponsored the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that federalized airport security. In May 2005, McCain led the so-called "[[Gang of 14]]" in the Senate, which established a compromise that preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances". McCain also co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform (see below under political record for details). In addition to bipartisan work in the Senate, it was during this period that McCain was courted by the Senate Democrats, and considered switching parties.<ref>http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html</ref>

===2008 Presidential Campaign===

{{main|John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign}}

[[Image:McCain_nomination.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain accepting his party's presidential nomination, 09/04/08]] McCain announced his run for President in early 2007 at New Hampshire, a state which had boosted his floundering 2000 run for President. From the onset, he ran on an unwavering support for the Iraq War and a close tie to President Bush, stemming from his shift during the 2004 election. The Republican Party was highly splintered among political groups, with strong constituents of the Christian social conservatives (Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee), anti-immigration activists (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo), and the blockbuster fundraisers, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, who appeared to be media favorites upon entry. McCain was not seen as a viable candidate by many Republicans because of his strong support for immigration reform and distaste for political fund-raising. Mitt Romney, for instance, had raised $23 million in the first three months of 2007, for instance, three times that of Sen. McCain.<ref>Cook, Charles. "The 2008 Presidential Primaries: What in America's Name Is Going On?" The Washington Quarterly Vol. 31 Issue 3 pp. 193-204.</ref>

Christian conservatives overwhelmingly backed Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, rejecting McCain from longstanding offense he had struck during his 2000 run. John McCain had called politically-charged leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance" for their part in a smear campaign during the South Carolina Primary. Many Christians were angered by these remarks, and fumed that they would field a Third Party candidate if McCain was chosen as the nominee. McCain had shown unfavorable views on abortion and religious initiatives in the past, and many Republican voters were worried that he could not be a reliably conservative candidate. <ref>Luo, Michael. "Evangelicals see Dilemma in GOP Field." July 8, 2007. New York Times.</ref>

Sen. McCain's unwavering support for victory in Iraq was made into a hot-button issue by many politicians following stories of insurgent violence erupting during early 2007. People began to fear the worst in Iraq, and the idea of a timetable for withdrawal became a major issue. At this time, conservative Republicans also feared McCain's position on immigration reform, and booed him loudly at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference. A news story by the New York Times was a major blow to the campaign, which reported that a scandalous affair between McCain and a lobbyist had taken place. It was found to be completely false, but the story severely hurt his political advances.

When news had spread that McCain's campaign bankrupted and "imploded" in the summer of 2007, the Republican nomination began a period of quick shifting; other candidates began to soar in the polls, detracting McCain's support. Rudy Giuliani, who collected a strong following based on his leadership as "America's Mayor", began to court evangelical Christians who felt uneasy about McCain, gaining the endorsement of televangelist Pat Robertson. However, as his less-than-flattering personal life and liberal positions on social issues became apparent, he quickly lost momentum to Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee.<ref>Cook, Charles. "The 2008 Presidential Primaries: What in America's Name Is Going On?" The Washington Quarterly Vol. 31 Issue 3 pp. 193-204.</ref> Fred Thompson, who entered late in the race, quickly withdrew because of lackadaisical popularity and poor fund-raising efforts. Huckabee remained popular in the Southern United States, but failed to win major contests among independents and Democrat voters.

Romney had the edge in early races, but couldn't deliver a knockout blow. McCain's poll numbers slowly increased and benefited as the field narrowed. After McCain defeated top contender Mitt Romney by a large margin on Super Tuesday in delegate-rich states like New York, California, and Arizona,<ref>Scott Neuman and Howard Berkes. "Mitt Romney Drops Out of GOP Presidential Race." Feb. 7, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18772382</ref> Mitt Romney withdrew with some protest, leaving McCain the clear front-runner.<ref>Bumiller, Elisabeth, Kirkpatrick, David. "Romney Is Out; McCain Emerges as G.O.P. Choice." Feb. 8, 2008. New York Times.</ref> Although McCain's proportion of the vote was not much higher than Romney's, he won most of the 'winner take all' states giving him a much higher proportion of the delegate count. Without Romney's well-financed opposition, McCain easily clinched the necessary delegate lead of 1,191 in March after a spirited yet short-lived fight from Mike Huckabee.<ref>NPR.org. "Election 2008: Huckabee, Romney Stay in Race for GOP Nomination." Feb. 6, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18739137</ref>

McCain had won the nomination and could focus on the [[2008 United States Presidential Election]].

==Domestic Policy==
[[Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain discusses his opinions with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press", 2005]]

===Balanced Budget===
McCain has emphasized reducing government spending over tax cuts. He is one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of pork barrel spending and has pledged to veto any bill with pork as President. Congressional experience has enabled John McCain to identify items that are unnecessary. McCain is fiscally responsible with the taxpayers' money and created a simple method to detect spending abuses. <ref>[http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=d1a878d9-f16c-4570-b402-9d1bc3fe6ab9] , http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=d1a878d9-f16c-4570-b402-9d1bc3fe6ab9, U.S. Senate Pork Barrel Spending</ref>

* An appropriation that is not properly authorized by the Senate and not requested by the Administration.
* An unauthorized and unrequested, locality-specific or facility-specific earmark (including those funds that are above the Administration request).
* A budget add-on that would be subject to a budget point of order.
* The transfer or disposal of federal property or items under terms that circumvent existing law.
* New items added in conference that were never considered in either bill in either House.

===Economy===
Upon his party gaining the White House in 2001, McCain opposed a $1.35 trillion cut in [[taxation]] over 10 years, but switched his position around 2006, and voted to renew it twice. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

Since the tax cuts, [[IRS]] revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4 percent increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58 to 66 percent of GDP. Defense spending increased 61 percent, and non-defense by 23 percent during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Congress and the White House has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage since the administration of President [[Lyndon Johnson]], but McCain has opposed every earmark put forward in the Democratic and Republican congresses, even ones Bush supported. Part of the huge spending increases are directly traceable to the economic repercussions of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the economic downturn in its aftermath, and increased defense and Homeland Security spending. However, this appears likely to be eclipsed by the spending plans of [[Barack Obama]], who pledged on 6 December 2008 to invest "record amounts of money" in infrastructure, a plan which some members of Congress are estimating at $400 to $700 billion.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?ref=us Obama Pledges Public Works on a Vast Scale], New York Times, 6 December 2008</ref>.

McCain's policies have caused general economic growth. This is partially due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2007, although the [[NASDAQ]] is still down considerably from the levels it was at before the Dot-com bubble burst. Corporations showed profits growing by double digits growth.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class benefited from the Bush economy, as unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> McCain supported a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included McCain's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

===Earmarks===
John McCain staunchly opposes [[earmarks]] as [[corrupt]] and wasteful spending. In his 28 years in federal government, McCain has never requested an earmark. He vigorously crusaded against earmarks in his 2008 presidential campaign.

===Education===
McCain supports [[school vouchers]] and [[charter school]]s. His voting record shows support for reducing the federal government's role in [[education]]. He voted for school vouchers for Washington, D.C., education savings accounts, and against $5 billion for grants to local educational agencies. McCain sponsored the Education A-Plus bill in 1997 and again in 1999, which allowed parents to open tax-free saving accounts for their children's school supplies. McCain also co-sponsored the Child Nutrition Act, which would provide [[federal funding]] for at-risk children. He has publicly stated he supports [[intelligent design]] teaching in schools.<ref>http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/90069 "On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools...McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind."</ref>

===Health Care===
McCain's record and stated positions on [[health care]] are based on true conservative principles. He is against socialized health care and health coverage mandates. McCain supports tax credits for personal health savings accounts and enhancing competition in the health care industry to improve quality and lower costs. He also supports allowing citizens to purchase out-of-state health insurance. In an October 2007 statement, McCain said: "In health care, we believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care. We do not believe in coercion and the use of state power to mandate care, coverage or costs." McCain is a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. <ref>[http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/healthcare.htm Pro Healthcare]</ref>

===Energy===
John McCain has stated "ethanol subsidies, tariff barriers and sugar quotas drive up food prices and hurt Americans. However, we cannot take the wrong direction and cut off trade for American goods."<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm], McCain Economic Plan</ref> “America’s most vital interests call us to the mission of energy security, and so does our sense of honor. And the straightest, swiftest path to energy security is to produce more, use less, and find new sources of power — so that no commodity can determine our security, and no crisis can undermine our economy,” McCain said in Houston, TX, June 16, 2008. He proposes to remove federal obstacles to offshore drilling. Among his major initiatives is the removal of the 27-year old federal moratorium on states’ abilities to explore and drill for oil and natural gas.<ref>[http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/17/mccain-slaps-obama-on-energy-calls-for-more-drilling/], McCain slaps Obama on energy, June 17th, 2008</ref> In addition, he wants the states to receive incentives and royalties to drill. The current ban on offshore drilling covers an estimated 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters."We've seen the impact of it in the form of food prices, in the form of gasoline, in the form of threats of inflation and indeed indications of inflation, and we must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/mccain] , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_on_el_pr/mccain , AP McCain urges end to ban on offshore drilling , June 16, 2008</ref> He indicated, though, that the end of the ban on offshore drilling would have mostly psychological effects in the short term. At a town hall meeting, McCain stated, "I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."
He would support incentives for building new nuclear power plants. <ref>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/24/1163504.aspx</ref> John McCain wants more nuclear reactors to increase America's energy independence. He is calling for the construction of 45 new reactors by 2030. Also, McCain wants to increase federal funds for clean coal technology by 2 billion dollars to reduce dependence on foreign oil. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1] , http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1 , AP McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors, June 18, 2008</ref>
McCain supports increasing ethanol imports and more production of hybrid vehicles. He is co-sponsor of a Senate cap-and-trade bill designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. He has consistently voted for preserving the budget for ANWR but against drilling for [[oil]] in the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]] (ANWR), because of environmental concerns. Conservationists differ from conservatives that 2000 acres for oil drilling is not enough to impact [[polar bears]] in the region.

===Environment===
McCain's position on [[global warming]] issues has put him at odds with conservatives. His [[environment]]al proposals are mostly sound modern thinking by someone that understands the enormity of the problem. McCain says that we can go green as a nation without bankrupting America. Per his website, Senator McCain "wants to leave a better future for our children."
On January 2007, McCain said, "we continue to learn more about the science of climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed." On October 30, 2003, he co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act (S.139), which was defeated. McCain is a member of, and was endorsed by, the Republicans for Environmental Protection organization. His conservative stances include voting to confirm Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior and he is in favor of renewable energy such as solar, hydro, and wind. "Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better, and one day they will change our economy forever."

===Immigration===
John McCain says that he will secure the borders first and many [[immigration]] issue are still needed but will have to come later. In 2007, McCain worked to provide border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Conservatives wanted nothing to do with the proposal and in June 2007, Congress' efforts collapsed. McCain said of the outcome,"I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-610628094_x.htm] , http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-11-03-610628094_x.htm, AP McCain emphasizes border security, November 4, 2007</ref> "..I support the same solution. But we've got to secure the borders first" says McCain

On Jan. 5, regarding the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Senator McCain announced that anyone who says he supported amnesty is "a liar, is lying." The senator stated "I do not support, nor would I ever support, any services provided to someone who came to this country illegally, nor would I ever and I never have supported [[Social Security]] benefits for people who are in this country illegally. Any assertion to the contrary is absolutely false." During the comprehensive immigration reform debate, Senator McCain voted to table an amendment that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security who "are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity."<ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00130</ref> Senator McCain stated in a May 29, 2003 interview, "Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens." Arguing amnesty is not a free pass or a reward for law breaking, McCain stated, "Well, because amnesty, according to the dictionary, is forgiveness. The proposal that we had- would require fines, would require back in the line, would require deportation for some. It would require others to go back to the country of their origin" <ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/John_McCain_Immigration.htm] , Ontheissues.com, John McCain on Immigration</ref> At the [[Republican]] debate at the Reagan Library, McCain stated he supports the deportation of 2 million illegals who have committed crimes in the USA.

Conversely, in a June 2008 meeting with Hispanic leaders in Chicago, McCain indicated he would push legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected. According to one attendee, Rosanna Pulido, head of the Illinois [[Minuteman Project]], ""He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics..." <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/mccain-discusses-immigrat_n_108297.html McCain Discusses Immigration With Hispanic Leaders</ref> <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-06-19-4020801806_x.htm McCain Meets With Hispanic Leaders</ref> Pulido further stated, "He was telling one group of people one thing and the Hispanics another, I'm a conservative and I think he's throwing conservatives under the bus."<ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/title----mcca-1.html McCain Double-Talk on Immigration?</ref> Due to his support, members of the Minuteman Project, participating in the Minuteman Project Caravan, traveled to Washington, D.C. to register their disapproval. They made an entry into McCain's Guest Log Book asking him to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law. After making the entry, the group was forced to leave by a senior staffer for Senator McCain or be reported to the police. <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1643181/posts Minuteman Project Thrown Out of McCain's Office</ref>

Senator McCain's position on illegal immigration has arguably resulted in the most criticisms from conservatives. On May 12, 2005, McCain joined Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-[[Massachusetts]]) as co-sponsor of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. The bill would legalize and eventually grant citizenship to the estimated 12–20 million [[illegal alien]]s in the United States and have them immediately start collecting social security and other government benefits. The bill never came for a vote on the Senate floor. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 are two additional compromises based on the original McCain-Kennedy bill. McCain has consistently voted for visas for skilled workers. McCain voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and has said border security should be a bigger priority then the illegal aliens who are currently here.

===Global Trade===
McCain has actively supported reducing barriers to trade and has shown leadership in the [[Senate]] on Free Trade Agreements (FTA). Senator McCain supports both pending FTAs for Columbia and [[South Korea]]. <ref>[http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/p/McCain_Trade.htm], John McCain and Trade</ref> He voted for and defends the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

===Social Security===
McCain is a strong supporter of private [[Social Security]] accounts.

===Tax Reform===
In 2001, McCain gained attention as one of only two Republicans who voted against President Bush's tax cuts. He opposed accelerating the cuts in 2003, saying, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit." He has now changed his stance, by voting to make the tax cuts permanent, and says he would do the same as President. In 2002, Senator McCain was one of only two Republicans to twice vote against the permanent repeal of the Death Tax. He has also refused to sign a pledge put forth by Americans for Tax Freedom not to impose any new taxes or increase existing taxes. However, many of McCain's votes has shown support for lower taxes, such as eliminating the marriage penalty, a 1997 vote to cut capital gains taxes and he introduced measures that would require a sixty-vote majority to pass a tax increase.

==Foreign Policy==

===National Security===

McCain urges the Senate to pass FISA. “For months, House Democrats, the [[ACLU]], and the trial lawyers have held up legislation to modernize our nation’s terrorist surveillance laws. Today, the House passed a compromise bill to end this impasse. While I would have preferred to see the Senate bill enacted, which I voted for earlier this year, I am pleased Congressional leaders and the Administration were able to reach an agreement to reform our current surveillance law and not let FISA expire in August. I hope [[Senate]] Democrats will allow this matter to quickly be considered by the Senate and sent to the President for his signature. I will support this measure and hope that politics will be put aside in favor of this vital national security matter.” <ref>[http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a7f9dc6c-da0e-459d-dd6c-91e20a46e1e5] , McCAIN URGES SENATE PASSAGE OF FISA
, June 20, 2008</ref> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was established in 1978.

McCain has voted in support of the [[Patriot Act|USA PATRIOT Act]] as well as National Missile Defense. However, he has joined [[liberal]]s in support of immediately closing [[Guantanamo Bay]], and moving all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. On October 3, 2005, he introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The bill was passed and signed by President [[George W. Bush]]. McCain has recently criticized the practice of [[waterboarding]], saying "they should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." McCain voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from water boarding prisoners.

===Afghanistan===
After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] McCain was a strong advocate for military action in [[Afghanistan]], saying:

''We did not cause this war. Our enemies did, and they are to blame for the deprivations and difficulties it occasions. They are to'' ''blame for the loss of innocent life. They are to blame for the geopolitical problems confronting our friends and us. We can help'' ''repair the damage of war. But to do so, we must destroy the people who started it.'' <ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001375</ref>

McCain is currently calling for 15,000 additional troops to address the situation in Afghanistan, similar to his victorious 2007 troop surge in Iraq.

===Iran===
McCain has said that "We continue to be concerned about [[Iran]]ian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons." He tried to ban Iran from playing in the 2006 World Cup, citing Iranian President [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]'s [[Holocaust]] denials.

===Iraq===
[[Image:610x.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Senator John McCain with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, 03/17/08]] McCain voted with the majority [[Republican]] Party and 29 Democrats of the Senate in favor of the 2002 "[[Iraq War]] Resolution" authorizing President George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq and overthrow the [[Saddam Hussein]] regime. In 1998, McCain voted in favor of HR 4655 Iraq Liberation Act, signed by then President Clinton. <ref>[http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm], http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm, HR4655 Public Law: 105-338, October 31, 1998</ref> HR 4655 declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. McCain went on to became a critic of the management of the war, arguing that there wasn't enough troop strength in the area. However, he never became a defeatist advocating surrender. McCain publicly stated that he had "no confidence" in then-Secretary of Defense [[Donald Rumsfeld]]. However, he refused to call for his resignation, saying that "the President picks his team, and the president has the right to stay with that team if he wants to." McCain became one of the strongest leading advocates in the Senate for the 2007 troop surge, which increased the number of American troops by 20,500, deployed to provide security to [[Baghdad]] and Al Anbar Province. On February 4, he criticized a non-binding resolution opposing the troop buildup, calling it a reckless "vote of no confidence" in the U.S. Commanders and in the military. Additionally, he voted against all measures aimed at withdrawal of U.S. forces and voted against cutting off of war funds. McCain rightly believes that Congress should not micromanage the war and to give the military everything they ask for to successfully complete the mission. He has mentioned in a town hall forum that staying the course in Iraq for 'a hundred years' would not bother him if no American soldier's were losing their lives. This became an issue for Democratic political strategy. The DNC lead by chairman [[Howard Dean]] repeatedly tried to use false statements in justifying attacking McCain.<ref>[http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html]http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html, Washington post Fact Checker, April 2, 2008</ref> What McCain said is very different from what the liberal media and the DNC were reporting. Asked in Derry, NH of the willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, he said "Make it 100" and

{{QuoteBox|"That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."}}

===Russia===
Senator McCain has strongly criticized [[Russia]]n President [[Vladimir Putin]]. During a primary debate he sad, ""He bullies his neighbors and he wants to get a control of the energy supply of Western Europe. This is a dangerous person. And he has to understand that there's a cost to some of his actions." In 2005 McCain and [[Connecticut]] senator [[Joe Lieberman]] drafted a resolution banning Russia from attending the Group of 8 (G8) international forum. McCain is also a strong supporter of ballistic national missile defenses.

===Cuba===
McCain forcefully supports the [[Cuban embargo]] and believes it should be maintained until certain specific political freedoms are restored to the country. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&fta=y&adxnnlx=1222106556-zea3cQG12OakFI9P97dogQ</ref>

==Social Issues==
===Abortion===
{{QuoteBox|"If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."}}

Sen. John McCain has more than a twenty year anti-[[abortion]] record, first in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]], then in the U.S. Senate. McCain voted 11 times on anti-abortion and other [[pro-life]] issues in the House. Senator McCain has voted 119 times on anti-abortion and other pro-life measures in the Senate. <ref>[http://www.naral.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf], http://www.naral.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf</ref>

McCain's record in the Senate on abortion is pro-life. He voted for the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. McCain has also voted against government funding of birth control and sex education.<ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00214 Voted Nay on an amendment to authorize grants to carry out programs to provide education on preventing teen pregnancies</ref> <ref>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00075 Vote against allocation of $100m for prevention of unintended pregnancies </ref><ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/quiet-campaign-against-contraception Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast that he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.</ref> During his first Presidential campaign for the 2000 election, McCain said the following on [[Roe v. Wade]], "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07021908.html McCain's "</ref> He has since changed his position, saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

John McCain:
* Voted against a [[Roe v. Wade]] resolution
* Co-sponsored and voted for the Federal Abortion Ban
* Supported H.R.1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
* Voted for four anti-abortion U.S. Supreme Court judges
* Voted for six anti-abortion lower court judges
* Supported H.R.3913, to prohibit federal funds for abortion services in any case
* Voted to make it a federal crime for anyone but a parent to cross state lines for abortion termination
* Voted in favor of a national network of parental notification.

====Quotations====
“I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.” <ref>Ann Althouse, Rudy & Mitt Hem & Haw on Abortion, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 24, 2007.</ref>

*"I have many, many votes and it’s been consistent. And I’ve got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all those years…."<ref>John McCain for President 2008, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life</ref>
*"My record is clear, and I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little… misleading…. As you know I don’t support Roe v. Wade…. I thought it was a bad decision, and I think that the decision should be made in the states"<ref>John McCain for President 2008, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life</ref>
*“I’m proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. I’m very proud to have played a very small role in making that happen.” McCain explained further that he “will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts” to fill future court vacancies.<ref>[http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26539], Letter from Sen. John McCain to Pro‐Life Community Janary 23, 2008</ref>

===Gun Control===
McCain's record on [[gun control]] is mixed. He co-sponsored the Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001. This act would reduce the number of gun shows, require gun-owners to purchase trigger locks, and allow federal agents to arrest those who violate federal gun laws. However, McCain has frequently voted in support of the Second Amendment, such as voting against background checks at gun shows and voting in support of prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. In August of 1999, McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details. However, he still voted against the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the efforts to renew it, as well as the Brady Bill.

A top official of the [[National Rifle Association]] said McCain has been a reliable ally of gun owners despite divisions with the powerful lobbying group on some issues. NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press "...We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners." <ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, May 14, 2008</ref> The Republican presidential nominee has voted against a ban on assault-type weapons with restrictions which were objected.

===Same-sex marriage===
In the speech on the Senate floor July 13th, 2004, McCain stated “Mr. President, most Americans believe, as I do, that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman." <ref>http://www.friendsofmccain.com/news/dspnews.cfm?id=143</ref> John McCain revealed his decision based on super majority requirements and the current political realities within Congress. “By my count, there is not at this time even a small majority of senators who would vote for Senator Allard’s amendment, much less the 67 votes required by the Constitution. That won’t change, Mr. President, unless public opinion changes significantly. The [[Founders]], wisely, made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend, and, as a practical political matter, can’t be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that. Were it any easier I fear we could not make the claim for the Constitution’s enduring success that I have just made." Further, he explained his approach to the amendment's ultimate success “If a constitution is to be amended, Mr. President, it should be a state constitution." McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court effectively created a ruling to grant same-sex partners equal rights to [[Marriage]] and to be recognized by the state. A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

===Evolution===
Senator John McCain's position on evolution is nuanced:

{{QuoteBox|"I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view, I happen to [[believe in evolution]]. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? '''Probably not'''." [http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/]}}

==Personal life==
[[Image:Cindy McCain.jpg|thumb|Cindy McCain]]
McCain has been married twice. His first marriage, to Carol Shepp, ended in [[divorce]] in 1980 after 15 years, of which he spent five in captivity. McCain publicly acknowledges the responsibility for the breakup as his, stating in a 2008 interview with Pastor Rick Warren that "My greatest moral failing, and I have been a very imperfect person, is the failure of my first marriage". .<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rules021299.htm</ref> His second and current wife is Cindy Lou Hensley, to whom he has been married for 28 years. His son John Sidney IV is a Midshipman at the [[United States Naval Academy]], Annapolis, and his son James is a non-commissioned officer in the [[United States Marine Corps]], who is serving in [[Iraq]] as part of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Also, the McCains adopted a ten-week old baby girl in 1993, who they named Bridget, from [[Mother Teresa]]'s orphanage in [[Bangladesh]].<ref>[http://celebrity.rightpundits.com/?p=3183 Bridget McCain Biography] Rightpundits.com</ref> <ref>[http://www.newsanalysisindia.com/109022008.htm Bridget vs Sonia: McCain vs Rajiv Gandhi] News Analysis India</ref>
Cindy McCain was in the country as part of the American Voluntary Medical Team <ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-041408-cindy-mccain-bio,1,2151434.story Bio of Cindy McCain]</ref> in response to the 1991 [[Bangladesh]] cyclone.
===McCain's family===
*Wife Cindy
*4 sons
**Douglas
**Andrew
**John (''"Jack"'') Sidney IV
**James
*3 daughters
**Sidney
**Meghan
**Bridget
*Parents
**[[Admiral]] John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from [[Indiana]])
**[[Roberta McCain|Roberta Wright McCain]] (from [[Oklahoma]]).

== Books ==
* ''Faith of My Fathers'' (Random House; 1999) ISBN 0-3755-0191-6
* ''Odysseus in America'' (Scribner; 2002) ISBN 0-7432-1156-1
* ''Worth Fighting For: A Memoir'' (Diane Publ. Co; 2002) ISBN 0-7567-6759-8
* ''Medal of Honor'' (Artisan; 2003) ISBN 1-5796-5240-9
* ''Why Courage Matters: The Way to a Braver Life'' (Random House; 2004) ISBN 1-4000-6030-3
* ''Character Is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know and Every Adult Should Remember'' (Random House; 2005) ISBN 1-4000-6412-0
* ''Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them'' (Twelve; 2007) ISBN 0-4466-9911-X

==Further reading==
*McCain, John [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513224&in_page_id=1811 ''My six years of hell: John McCain recalls life as a prisoner of war in Vietnam''] 8 February 2008 [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 9 February 2008

==See Also==
* [[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]
* [[Previous Breaking News/John McCain|Articles about John McCain from previous "Breaking News"]]
* [[White House]]
*[[Cindy McCain]], spouse of John McCain
*[[Roberta McCain]], mother of John McCain

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQsckD9trn4&eurl=http://evangelicalsformccain.org/meetthesenator.htm ''John McCain: Courageous Service''] - Streaming video documentary hosted at YouTube, including footage of McCain's time as a POW and the Forrestal incident.
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249 John McCain Biography]
*[http://evangelicalsformccain.org/index.htm Evangelicals for McCain] - Christians, Families and Patriots for John McCain
*[http://studentsformccain08.blogspot.com/ Students for McCain 2008]
*[http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/mccains-mom-pop.html McCain's Mom Pops Off]
*[http://www.rd.com/national-interest/people-and-politics/our-interview-with-sen-john-mccain/article.html Presidential Candidate John McCain on the Issues]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270 Voting record]

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

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:McCain, John}}

[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

John McCain

2009-02-22T23:55:42Z

JohnHC: I see equality is given.

#REDIRECT[[John Sidney McCain III]]

User:JohnHC

2009-02-22T23:54:24Z

JohnHC: New page: I was JohnObama but got blocked for an improper username. I now have my first name, middle initial, and last initial. ==My name== JohnObama, because I liked Obama, and my name is John. ...

I was JohnObama but got blocked for an improper username. I now have my first name, middle initial, and last initial.

==My name==
JohnObama, because I liked Obama, and my name is John.

===No===
It's not John McCain.

==i don't know why==
This wiki seems so biased, I mean just look at [[John McCain]]'s page, they make him seem like [[Jesus]]. Now look at Barack "Hussein" Obama, they make him llok like a freaking Muslim terrorist, and used his middle name just to scare people. Where the hell is McCain's middle name in the title? This should be a neutral wiki, and Republicans aren't the only people out there.