Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Thimpu

2007-09-08T02:18:24Z

Jylorrey:

'''Thimpu''' is the capital of [[Bhutan]].<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Countries]]

Thimpu

2007-09-08T02:16:39Z

Jylorrey: New page: '''Thimpu''' is the capital of Bhutan.<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html</ref> ==References== <references/> Category:Asia

'''Thimpu''' is the capital of [[Bhutan]].<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Asia]]

Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea

2007-09-08T02:10:36Z

Jylorrey:

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

hell yeah, "a patriotic conservative!" That is the most awesome response i have ever seen! Anyway, i think we should either nuke them(there isnt such a thing as innocent communists or muslims)or assassinate Mohammed "Iwannajihad" and Kim Jong Ill. Then we should take over and end the communism and islamofascism, spreading democracy and christianity. then, after we have a strong foothold in the east, we will nuke the chinese commies, and also take over their factories so we can keep producing their crap. After we take over the east, including japan and russia, we will move on to europe and the middle east, taking over the girly europeans (they won't do anything about it.) after that, we go on to africa, then south america, canada, and mexico. mexico can't do anything there's no one there anymore! They are all working at taco bell,and doing jobs "americans just won't do"

-New World Order

Why did you delete the original response?

Duh'yeah ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

The question seems somewhat misposed. A more important question would be, "Could the United States have eliminated Communism from North Korea." The answer to that question seems to be no. After all the North Korean military was quite large, and more importantly China intervened with an army of well over one million soldiers. Although those troops weren't terribly well equipped and hence couldn't defeat the forces protecting South Korea they did effectivelly defend North Korea along what is today the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). If victory had been plausible then maybe occupying the North would have been worthwhile, but the costs then were too high. Today they would be worse, since North Korea has atom bombs and Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. All in all a terrible situation.

:'''Comment:''' Pyongyang ''might'' have one or two bombs, but the underground detonation was most likely their only one. Besides, they don't possess a delivery system for the nukes, and we do XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::They don't possess a delivery system '''yet'''. Don't discount them in the brains department. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::They build giant statues. Why not giant slingshots? J.Y.L.

The question is more along the lines of COULD we have eliminated the communism in north korea. They had a sizable military force and would've been a challenge to successfully convert to the government we all know and love, our democracy. but how would the people of NK reacted? would the people following the leader and the leader's friends fought back after we had installed a president and cabinet? hmm... well what is happening in iraq? we have installed a democracy and a cabinet, but it is still not a mini-united states like we would like it to be. There are people there loyal to the way it was, and there would've been people loyal to the way it was in korea too.
We did the correct thing pulling out when we did, although they have nuclear weapons and would love to destroy.

but why havn't they? sanctions? the positive and non-militaritical approach that seemed to have worked against them.

Everyone seems to have a missed a major issue here: McArthur didn't want to just nuke North Korea, but also China.

==='''Uh...'''===

You are forgetting that in this day and age, any nation that were to use a Nuclear weapon, for ANY reason(Regardless of circumstance), would become a global pariah, with no allies at all throughout the world. Infact, one must remember that we are not the only ones with nukes thesedays, and that if we anger the wrong people, nothing will turn good.

:It's also worth noting that America is the only country to have employed nuclear weapons in war. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Many analysts actually estimate the DPRK to have possession of at least 12 kilograms of plutonium [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html]which could be fashioned into six or more bombs. Also, missiles and long range aircraft aren't the only delivery mechanisms, a container ship holding a smuggled nuke would be perfectly dangerous. Finally, American military personnel in Japan and South Korea are horribly vulnerable. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 14:06, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This assumes that Communism is a viable political construct. Conservatives have held for years that Communism, with its lack of competitive pressures/opportunities is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. If that's true, then why would we have to combat it at all?

Also, for anyone that claims to follow Christ, why would we kill millions of people to establish a different political system on earth when the kingdom of heaven awaits? Jesus could have thrown the Romans out of Jerusalem with a thought. However, he didn't because the earth is not the prize. Right? - Citizzzen 03.14.07

Very good insight Citizzzen. The Earth and everything in it is finite. But Communism also hurts the people it governs and does not allow its people to take part in any religion, effectively condemning their souls to Hell. Doesn't God want us to protect and defend the oppressed? I don't see why not. And I don't think the Bible says that God is against war. I am sure war is not a part of His original plan - that original plan would be a perfect world where there is no need for war - but God protected the Israelites through multiple wars. Why would He do such a thing if He were against war? I think there is such a thing as a just war. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait... Are we saying that a person's immortal soul could be condemned to hell because an earthly government didn't allow them to pray? An all loving, all knowing God wouldn't understand that? That seems hard to accept... I agree that some wars are justified, but only from a human standpoint... It seems to me that the Jews were no closer to salvation in Jerusalem then they were in Egypt. Assuming of course that eternal salvation is linked to loving worshipping and accepting God, and not rituals and sacrifices... Citizzzen 03.15.07

==Communism hasn't ever existed==

It's pretty hard to eliminate something which hasn't yet been implemented. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 19:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Real communism has never really existed in North Korea, it existed in Russia for a few years until Stalin though.

:Your argument is misleading, as you are changing the meaning of the term ''communism''. If by "real communism" you mean "the stateless stage of society after [[socialism]] enforced by [[dictatorishp]] has naturally withered away" then you are right (although still misleading).

:If you use the word the way the framer of the question meant it, then you are simply in error. [[Communism]] (i.e., state-enforced [[socialism]] of the Marxist variety) has most certainly existed in North Korea. It was brutal, atheistic, and managed to starve and impoverish the populace almost as severely as [[Pol Pot]] did in [[Cambodia]].

:I suggest you re-read history. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Why re-read it, let's just rewrite it! J.Y.L.

Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea

2007-09-08T02:09:09Z

Jylorrey:

User:Jylorrey

2007-09-08T01:39:04Z

Jylorrey:

New Delhi

2007-09-08T01:34:59Z

Jylorrey: New page: '''New Delhi''' is the capital of India.<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html</ref> ==References== <references/> Category:India

'''New Delhi''' is the capital of [[India]].<ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:India]]

Nigeria

2007-09-08T01:30:54Z

Jylorrey: O RYL?

{{stub}}

'''Nigeria''' is a large [[oil]]-rich country in [[West Africa]]. It has land borders with [[Cameroon]], [[Chad]], [[Niger]] and [[Benin]].

Its capital is [[Abuja]] and the largest city is [[Lagos]].

==Colonial Nigeria==

Nigeria was the most populous [[colony]] in [[Africa]] and one of the most prosperous, and it won its independence the [[United Kingdom]] in 1960. Tensions between ethnic groups - in part a legacy of the [[indirect rule]] model of [[imperialism]] - led to the [[Muslim]] [[Hausa-Fulani]] and [[Christian]] and [[animist]] [[Yoruba]] fighting a [[civil war]] with the Christian [[Ibo]].

==Modern Nigeria==
Nigeria is one of the strongest growing democracies in [[Africa]]. It is also the home to over 140 million people from different ethnicities and backgrounds. Having won its independence in 1960 Nigeria has continued to promote its sovereignty in the region, and assists its neighbors via the [[African Union]] or through supplying its neighbor’s power.

Nigeria is famous for internet [[fraud]] launched from the country, especially the [[419 scam|419 or Nigerian scam]], named for Article 419, an anti-fraud provision in the Nigerian Criminal Code.

Nigeria continues to suffer from internal tribal disunity, however, and this prompted one Nigerian nationalist to say, "Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression."

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:African Countries]]

Warthog

2007-09-08T01:19:52Z

Jylorrey: SNORT

The '''warthog''' (Phacochoerus africanus in [[Latin]]<ref>http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v91/n4/full/6800341a.html</ref>) is a type of wild [[pig]] that lives in [[Africa]]. They roam the savanna during the day and sleep in burrows during the night. Lions, cheetahs, wild dogs, and hyenas are the hog's predators, but adults are able to use their tusks in defense.<ref>http://www.nature-wildlife.com/warttxt.htm</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

[[Category:Africa]]

Burma

2007-09-08T01:03:58Z

Jylorrey:

'''Myanmar''' is a country in southeast [[Asia]], also known as Burma (to those who do not recognise its current government as legitimate).

The capital is Naypyidaw.

It is severely censured by groups from [[ASEAN]] <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3085819.stm </ref> and [[Amnesty International]] <ref>http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/mmr-summary-eng</ref> for its appalling [[human rights]] abuses, ranging from forced labour, to a campaign of oppression and what some claim amounts to [[genocide]].

The country contains most of the [[Karen]] people, an ethnic group which has been fighting for independence since 1949.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Asian Countries]]

Stanley

2007-07-10T05:33:17Z

Jylorrey: New page: '''Stanley''' is the capital of the Falkland Islands.<ref name>CIA World Fact Book</ref> ==References== <references/> Category:Capital Cities

'''Stanley''' is the capital of the [[Falkland Islands]].<ref name>CIA World Fact Book</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Capital Cities]]

User:Jylorrey

2007-07-10T05:05:27Z

Jylorrey:

Leftist

2007-07-10T04:53:33Z

Jylorrey:

{{merge|political spectrum}}
The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social, political, or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics.

The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word [[liberal]].

During the [[Reign of Terror]] of the early [[Enlightenment]], the left attempted a dechristianization movement to replace the "reactionary" worship of God and replace it with the worship of national patriotism, or the ''Patrie''. Many churches were closed and converted into Temples of Reason. <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). </ref>

Michael Bakunin critiqued prominent leftist theoritician [[Karl Marx]] in 1873 with these words,

:"..if the [[proletariat]] is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? ...the peasant "rabble" who, as it is known, does not enjoy the sympathy of the Marxists who consider it to represent a [[Racism|lower level of culture]], will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities. Or, if this problem is to be approached [[Nationalism|nationalist]]ically, the [[Slavs]] will be placed in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie." <ref>Michael Bakunin, ''Statism and Anarchy'', (1873), in Sam Dolgoff, ''Bakunin'' On Anarchy, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972), p. 330.</ref>

==Modern leftists==

Modern leftists in the United States have come under increasing criticism as advocates of thought control. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com//article.php?id=20562 Leftist Thought Control], David Limbaugh, ''Human Events'', 05/04/2007. </ref> Author David Limbaugh cites, "Consider the subjects of [[evolution]], [[global warming]], [[gay agenda|special rights for homosexuals]] and [[abstinence]] education. Consider efforts of the left to silence conservative talk radio. Consider the mainstream media's arrogant denial of its transparent [[liberal bias]], pronouncing itself to be above politics and inherently objective and its critics somehow skewed....Consider the leftist refrain that [[red state]] conservatives do not merely possess a different world view, but are not part of the "reality-based community.""

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html V. I. Lenin, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder''] (1920) V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.

[[category:politics]]

Madrid

2007-07-10T04:52:05Z

Jylorrey:

Madrid is capital of [[Spain]]. It has population of about 3,200,000 and it is the third largest city in the [[European Union]] after [[London]] and [[Berlin]].

[[Category:Cities]]
[[Category:Spain]]

Contraception

2007-07-10T04:47:54Z

Jylorrey:

'''Contraception''' (Lat. ''against conception'') generally refers to devices or substances that prevent pregnancy (birth control). There are many different [[Methods of contraception|methods]], each having its own level of effectiveness and safety. [[Abstinence]], of course, obviates the need for any form of birth control.

Although some believe that contraception should be a part of education to minimize unwanted pregnancies and the contraction of HIV AIDS, the reality remains that contraception encourages sexual behavior and promiscuity {{fact}}. Those who choose to have more than one sexual partner do so at their own risk and, in a sense, bring the burdens of disease and unwanted pregnancy on themselves. Therefore education and encouragement of contraceptive devices is not useful.

==Church teachings on contraception==

The Roman Catholic church teaches that all recreational intercourse (serving no procreational function) is a sin against God and therefore prohibits the use of contraceptives to Catholics.

The Anglican church regards sexual love as an essential way for a husband and wife to express and strengthen their mutual love, citing Genesis 2:18 'It is not good that the man (Adam) should be alone' in support of this. At the [[Lambeth Conference]] of 1930 a resolution was passed stating: ''Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method.'' It continued by saying that if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, ''the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles.''

However, by the Lambeth Conference of 1958, contraceptive use among most Anglicans was widespread and a resolution that year stated that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents ''in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife''. <ref> http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html#contraception </ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Contraception

2007-07-10T04:47:23Z

Jylorrey:

==Travesty==

This is a pity. I spent a lot of time creating a good article. I didnt use diagrams or naughty words. I didnt tell young people to go out and fornicate. I provide sound medical information. You obviously don't want to know. What about married couples who may wish to know this info?
You should be ashamed of yourself. Good luck.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

===WHAT??!!===
Andrew Schlafly just cut all the information about contraception out of the contraception page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 18:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Crap--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:How shocking. Statistics are apparently unencyclopedic. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 19:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

===Formatting===
Did it as a bulleted list, formatting help can be found here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing].

Can't see this page lasting though, abstinence is the only form of contraception doncha know. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Expert opinion ==

Just a heads up, I am planning on doing extensive editing for content here, as it is needed. If you question my qualifications, please check out my profile and discussion page. Thanks.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The few bizarre citations used are low on primary statistics, and are from the UK. I am including NIH and other American statistics and sources.

Intimacy is an OPINION (inherently); it probably doesnt require citation, rather, an explanation of it's potential importance.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Im also removing the dangerous and ridiculous claim about contraception aiding sexual assault. That's like saying crowbars are likely to cause break-ins, or AK-47s are likely to cause mass-murder. Citing a case where evidence of an assault was missing because of condom use is not helpful. You would need regression analysis to show that condoms increase crime, etc.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palm, I look forward to your edits on this one. I hope you can flesh out my analysis of how the pill works - I think I'm right, and at any rate, it's already better than BillOReillyFan's version about how the Pill "destroys" the organs :-/-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Call me "Pal". You're not too far off; what really ends up happening is the prevention of ovulation, and, as with Plan B, if fertilization does take place, prevention of implantation. We probably need to divide the section into "barrier methods", hormonal methods, IUDs, and ?other. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that division is a great idea. It might run afoul of Andy's idea of obscenity, but I'll defend you, for whatever that's worth :-). So Pal-MD: are you a doctor? How awesome to have a real doctor edit some of the... errr... erroneous (?) articles on this site!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, Im a professor of medicine. See my talk page--it includes a somewhat surreal dialog with ASchlafly about my qualifications. Good amusement value though.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I find what Andy DOESN'T say almost as funny as what he DOES say. He refuses to talk, for instance, about most things relating to [[user:Conservative]]'s failure to do useful things on this site. He also refuses to address issues of bias, or commentaries on the compatibility of evolution and religion... and I did see that thing on your talk page, I forgot about it though! Good times.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I probably won't get that far with this tonight, as it's 11pm here, but when I return to this tomorrow, I assume it will be hacked to bits. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

BillFan, thanks for your help with the clean up. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note that much of the above discussion is historical. I have specifically invited Andy to find a contributor to help with the last section.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Re: effectiveness of various methods: ''"Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence")''
:*Do you know what they call women who rely on the Rhythm method? [[/answer]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Where do people get a BAND at four [[o'clock]] in the morning?
That's a good thing, right?[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 17:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Perfect ==

This article is perfect and completely unbiased. Thanks to whoever fixed it up!

:: Oh-kayyyy... this is obviously some new definition of perfect that I've never come across. Abstinence is the best form of birth control is it? Well, yes, provided it works. However, the likelihood of it actually working means that it is less effective than almost any other means you care to imagine. This is really like claiming that condoms are 100% effective provided that (a) they are worn and (b) they do not split, leak or slip off.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Plea for tolerance ==

So, if this "encyclopedia" is to avoid the topic, well, then it needs a new name. Obviously, feel free to delete any well-referenced, well-researched information from an [[User:Palmd001|expert]] you wish, but don't pretend that you are doing it for accuracy or any other legitimate reason.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:As discussed elsewhere, there is a dispute over whether it's wise to tell kids (1) We don't think you have the willpower to remain abstinent till marriage so (2) since you're going to fornicate (3) you better use condoms, etc.

:Conservatives feel this encourages (4) fornication itself and (5) concomitant problems of unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

:Writing which looks neutral but nevertheless provides copious alternatives to abstinence effectively sends messages #1 and #2 above, conservatives believe. Conservatives also believe that '''partisans are well aware of this''' and (6) have the aim of promoting fornication and (7) don't really care at all about out-of-wedlock pregnancy or STD's. (Not 100% of each group mentioned - I was speaking in general.)

:I would therefore check with Andy before adding a "methods of contraception" section to this article. I imagine what senior staff want here is a critique of it, not a how-to guide.

:If you'd like to work with me on a "Strategies to prevent STD" article, I'm happy to help. It could examine the effectiveness of various campaigns and curricula. As you probably have heard, there's a raging controversy over whether (8) abstinence-only curricula are more effective or (9) "abstinence is best but if you're gonna do it anyway use this" curricula are more effective. Part of the controversy no doubt comes from partisan refusal on the Liberal side to give an inch to the abstinence camel. There are some people who would rather die than give up fornication. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I can see how describing various forms of contraception could be considered sending messages (1) and (2) to kids in a sex ed class (I don't ''agree'' with it, but I can see how you could think it). This isn't a sex ed class. It's an article about contraception. I don't see how describing various forms of contraception in an article about contraception could possibly send messages to anyone about anything, beyond describing various forms of contraception. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Kids aren't the only ones to have sex, and a married couple may be interested to know what contraception choices they have. Moreover, having seen the results of an abstinence only education (over 5 girls in my sister's junior class of 50 boys and girls have already dropped out of school due to being pregnant), I think that it is prudent to educate on the types of birth control available. Advocating use of birth control, abstinence or other forms, is different and far more important than advocating not having sex due for whatever personal reason. I personally am a fan of the "yay abstinence, but this is birth control so use it if you're going to have sex" education, as I would rather multiple people have sex and not get pregnant or STIs than one person get an STI or pregnant. Anyway, that's just my two cents plus a little. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 07:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll just repeat my suggestion above starting a [[Methods of contraception]] article and embellish it a little. A careful and accurate examination of the effectiveness of (1) the methods themselves and (2) campaigns to teach these methods would be really good reference material for an encyclopedia to supply. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Statistics==

Sorry if I've inadvertantly gone wrong here. The population statistics are from the US government census website I linked to. The assumptions about fertility and sexual activity were, I thought, on the conservative side, but you're right that I can't cite a source for those. The figures for failure rates were at the lower-than-probable end of the ones you gave in the earlier section. The reason for including the section was that there is often a misunderstanding of the term 'failure rate', and I wanted to expand on the implications of that. Please by all means improve on my contribution, but I think it's an expansion of this article that needs making. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:15 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me see what I can do...I can expand on failure rate, but you have to be careful about how you massage statistics. For instance, if 3 out of 100 women will get pregnant using it, that does not mean that after 2 years, 6 out of 100 will. Trying to apply in aggregate is bad stats. If you have someone you know who is good with stats, that would be great.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I'm going to leave it for somebody with a better knowledge of statistics than me in that case. I don't want to post something that's wildly inaccurate, but I do think that there is a popular conception (not a deliberate pun, honestly) that a 1% failure rate means that there will hardly be any unintended pregnancies if the contraception is used reliably, and as I understand it that's not the case, once you start looking at large numbers of women. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:45 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Scope of the article==

Colin's latest change indicates an overlap with the topic of [[Sex education]]. Let's form a strategy for dealing with all the topics relating to this. I'm starting a list below, which should then be moved to someplace like [[Conservapedia:Sex education topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Sex education]] topics:
*[[contraception]]
*[[abstinence]]
*"abstinence-until-marriage" education programs
*"[[comprehensive sex education]]"

:Wouldn't a category be more appropriate? And the only reason I changed the entry is because there is no question that abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::At the risk of contradicting myself, I must admit that there *is* a question about whether abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. The question centers on whether it is '''realistic''' to expect anyone to abstain from something as pleasant and "delicious" as sexual intercourse. The idea that it is an irresistible urge (which it is abnormal to resist) is actually quite widespread and prevalent. For example, I know of an army officer who said, "If a man won't f---, he won't fight." And you know about marching cadences taught in basic training, don't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps a bit crude, but all the same, well put Ed. Some editors here seem to be desperately trying to give the impression that liberals have a monopoly on common sense. I dispute that. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::While refraining from sex may be irresistible, when used, abstinence is completely effective. After all, unless the form of contraception is being used, one cannot expect it to do its function. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The "when used" part is the key to the issue. Thank God conservatives don't have a monopoly on common sense. -Ed
:::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? Or are people that stupid these days? But if you feel that the "when used" qualifier is needed, by all means, put it in the entry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::(Late retort) There are many stupid people and much stupidity about contraception. For instance, some people think they can rely on withdrawal and/or rhythm, and there's a medical term especially for members of the fair sex who do: [[/answer|(see the surprise answer here)]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly Ed "when used", [[Capital Punishment]] is 100% effective - no one ever reoffends. Why not apply it for all felonies and misdemeanors? Would people cease committing misdemeanors. Not likely - if we killed them all the economy would collapse. It would cause more harm than good. Damage or harm reduction are the the (pragmatic?) buzzwords.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? My understanding (PalMD, please correct me if this is wrong) is that contraception failure rates are generally quoted as pregnancies per N people using them for M time, as actually used, and that some or many of the 'failures' reported are actually failures to use the method properly or at all. IE, you find a woman who says "I use condoms for birth control" and check back in a year to see if she's pregnant; if she is, you chalk that up as a condom failure, even if it's because she skipped the condom one night. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 14:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct, in general. It is similar to the "intention-to-treat" analysis in RTCs. Some studies include information on"properly and regularly uses", but most rates are quoted as above. Condoms, for instance, are 85% effective in general, much more when used as directed, with spermacide.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Have there been any studies on abstinence's failure rate with that methodology? I remember hearing about some studies on teen sexual behavior following abstinence-only education vs. broad-knowledge education, but that's not quite the same thing. (As a side note, I'm ''still'' having trouble getting my head around the fact that some schools simply don't teach some of this stuff; I went to a Catholic high school, and even they tought us what the options were. Yes, the had a lot of focus on failure rates, health problems, and discouragement-by-grotesquery, not to mention the church teachings, but as far as I know they taught every FDA-approved artificial method plus abstinence and the rhythm method.) --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "use" or "reliance" has to include what I'll call the "compliance factor". Do seatbelts prevent injury? In my case, yes. I never get behind the wheel without putting on my seatbelt. Even to move a parked car to another spot in a lot. I have a high compliance factor.

Pills you take every day are hard to forget in a 'moment of passion' but how often can we expect a high school [[American Pie|broncin' buck]] are going to remember to slip a [[condom|love glove]] out of his wallet at the crucial moment? Contrariwise, how often can we expect Little Miss Sunshine to recite "no glove, no love" and stick firmly to it when she's stuck in his hot embrace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Roll-back==

Sorry, Crocoite, I jittered on the trigger.

:No problem Ed. Crocoite 22:39, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Obviously something went on between Crocoite and Ed Poor (as can be seen in the history). Since I seem to have missed out on the discussion, can I ask why we chose the current page, which has one ify source ("God, the Holy Bible"), over this page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contraception&oldid=214707], which is more enclopedic, less preachy, and actually cited? (And before anyone gets in a huff, I'm calling the Bible in this case an "ify source" because it's not properly referenced; without chapter and verse there's no way to know the claim is actually in the book). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==POV==
This article is written from a purely Catholic POV. Protestants do not have a problem with the use of contraception within marriage, so it is incorrect to say that for Protestants recreational sex within marriage is sinful. Can it be rephrased to take account of that?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:39, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Make the change. Adding a reference would be helpful. Crocoite 13:25, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::No, the Bible clearly states, "be fruitful and multiply," which is entirely negated by any use of contraception. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Many people (most people, actually) use contraception as a way of spacing children, not to avoid having them completely. The Bible doesn't say 'be fruitful and multiply without limit'. Whatever your personal views about the Bible though, this article does not reflect Protestant denominational teachings on contraception. The Anglicans issued a statement in favour of contraception at the Lambeth Conference as long ago as 1930. The statement was carried by a majority of 193 to 67. This was followed in 1931 by statements by some American Protestants. I will add something on this into the article.A reasonable reference from a solid source seems to be [http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html#contraception] --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Where in the Bible does it say not to use contraceptives? I'm pretty sure contraceptives had not been invented 2000+ years ago, so I will remove that part. J.Y.L.

Regeneration

2007-07-09T19:19:10Z

Jylorrey:

Regeneration is the ability to re-grow a missing part of the body.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia
Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Nauru

2007-07-08T03:44:25Z

Jylorrey:

'''Nauru''' is an island nation in the South [[Pacific Ocean]]. It has a population of about 12,000 people.<ref>CIA World Factbook</ref>

==History==
Once upon a time it was quite rich, because of all the mining of [[guano]] that took place, but now that the guano is nearly all gone the island is quite poor. It largely depends on [[Australia]].<ref>CIA World Factbook</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]] [[Category:Continents]]

Nauru

2007-07-08T03:38:33Z

Jylorrey:

Nauru is an island nation in the South [[Pacific Ocean]]. It has about 12,000 people.<ref>CIA World Factbook</ref>

Once upon a time it was quite rich, because of all the mining of [[guano]], but now that the guano is nearly all gone the island is quite poor. It largely depends on [[Australia]].<ref>CIA World Factbook</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Oceanian Countries | Category:Continents]]

Nauru

2007-07-08T03:37:37Z

Jylorrey:

Nauru

2007-07-08T03:27:03Z

Jylorrey:

Nauru is an island nation in the South [[Pacific Ocean]]. It has about 12,000 people and largely depends on [[Australia]].<ref>CIA World Factbook</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Nauru

2007-07-08T03:26:33Z

Jylorrey:

Nauru is an island nation in the South Pacific Ocean. It has about 12,000 people and largely depends on Australia.<ref>CIA World Factbook</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Nauru

2007-07-08T03:25:29Z

Jylorrey: New page: Nauru is an island nation in the South Pacific Ocean. It has about 12,000 people and largely depends on Australia.<ref>CIA World Factbook</ref>

Nauru is an island nation in the South Pacific Ocean. It has about 12,000 people and largely depends on Australia.<ref>CIA World Factbook</ref>

User:Jylorrey

2007-07-08T03:21:02Z

Jylorrey: New page: "{{Useful links}}"

"{{Useful links}}"