https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Luojie 2026-11-13T23:04:47Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_English&diff=336874 2007-11-15T14:03:32Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>British English is the common name for the standardized version of spoken and written English used in the [[United Kingdom]] and in most British Commonwealth nations. It differs from standard US English both in its phonology (pronunciation), spelling, and in some grammatical constructs (e.g. some words in US English which take the definite article &quot;the&quot; , such as Hospital or University, do not take an article in British English).<br /> <br /> ==Differences in spelling between American and British English==<br /> <br /> ===re/er===<br /> <br /> Words such as centre, theatre, and spectre are (usually) in American English spelt &quot;center&quot;, &quot;theater&quot;, and &quot;specter&quot;.<br /> <br /> ===or/our===<br /> <br /> American spellings tend to eliminate the 'u' in words which, in British English, are spelt with an 'our'. Example: color and colour, parlor and parlour, savior and saviour. However, there are exceptions to this, such as the word 'glamour' which is thus spelt in both dialects.<br /> <br /> ===ae and oe===<br /> <br /> Many British words tend to retain the ligatures 'oe' and 'ae' in words of Greek or Latin origin. Examples: diarrhoea and diarrhea, orthopaedic and orthopedic, oesophagus and esophagus.<br /> <br /> ===Hyphens and spacing===<br /> <br /> Words are usually compounded in American English (ex: counterattack), whereas in British English they are usually separated by a hyphen (counter-attack).<br /> <br /> [[Category:Languages]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Omega&diff=336873 2007-11-15T14:02:22Z

<p>Luojie: Additional information</p> <hr /> <div>'''Omega''' is the final (24th) letter in the [[Greek]] alphabet, and is mentioned in the [[Book of Revelation]] in reference to [[Christ]] as &quot;the Alpha and the Omega,&quot; or the Beginning and the End.&lt;ref&gt;Revelation 21:6&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> In the Greek language it is pronounced like the &quot;o&quot; in &quot;hot&quot; as pronounced by a [[British English]] speaker and has the same sound value as the Greek letter omicron.<br /> <br /> == Reference ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> == See Also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Alpha]]<br /> <br /> [[category:language]]<br /> [[Category:bible]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chinese_Communist_Party&diff=336864 2007-11-15T13:48:02Z

<p>Luojie: Pinyinised some names</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Hgdutyu6.png|right|thumb|Flag of the Communist Party of China]]<br /> The '''Chinese Communist Party''' was founded in Shanghai in 1921 as the Asian branch of the [[Comintern]]. [[Mao Zedong]] was present at the founding &lt;ref&gt;Dick Wilson, ''The People's Emperor Mao: A Biography of Mao Tse-tung'', New York 1979, pg. 60.&lt;/ref&gt; and became the dominant party leader in 1935. <br /> <br /> The Chinese Communist Party persecutes the country’s Christian population, as well as the Falun Gong population, and Tibetan Buddhists. There are several well-documented cases of abuse, [[torture]] and false imprisonment.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26602 Christians under Attack in China], By Frederick W. Stakelbeck Jr., [[FrontPageMagazine.com]], January 25, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Comintern affiliate==<br /> <br /> The All-Russian Communist Party ([[Bolshevik]]) (later known as the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]), was obsessed with ambition for [[China]]. In 1920, the Soviet Union established the Far Eastern Bureau, a branch of the Third Communist International, or the [[Comintern]]. It was responsible for the establishment of a Communist party in China and other countries. Sumiltsky was the head of the bureau, and Grigori Voitinsky was a deputy manager. They began to prepare for the establishment of the CCP with Chen Duxiao and others. The proposal they submitted to the Far Eastern Bureau in June 1921 to establish a China branch of the Comintern indicated that the CCP was a branch led by the Comintern. On July 23, 1921, under the help of Nikolsky and Maring from the Far East Bureau, the CCP was officially formed.<br /> <br /> Marxism with its declaration to “use violent revolution to destroy the old state apparatus and to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat” was a completely foreign concept in China. Mao Zedong said, &quot;The social scum and hoodlums have always been spurned by the society, but they are actually the bravest, the most thorough and firmest in the revolution in the rural areas.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;From Mao’s “Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan” (March 1927).&lt;/ref&gt; The [[lumpen proletariat]] enhanced the violent nature of the CCP and established the early political power of the communist party in rural areas. The word “[[revolution]]” in Chinese literally means “taking lives.” In a debate over the term “lumpen proletariat” during the [[Cultural Revolution]], the CCP felt that “lumpen” did not sound good, and so the CCP replaced it with “[[proletariat]]” simply.<br /> <br /> The CCP raised funds by robbing banks and [[kidnap]]ping. Those kidnapped were kept alive to be ransomed back to their families for continued monetary support for the army. It was not until either the Red Army was satisfied or the kidnapped families were completely drained of resources that the hostages were sent home. Some had been tortured so badly that they died before they could return.<br /> <br /> In 1935, Mao and Zhou Enlai were elected to the Executive Committee of the Comintern in Moscow. They remained on this committee until it was publicly disbanded in 1943. A Moscow message to all stations on 12 September 1943, message number 142,&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.nsa.gov/venona/venon00008.cfm Venona 142(a) Moscow to Canberra 12 September 1943]. Text reads: &quot;change in circumstances - and in particular the dissolution of the [[Comintern]] - necessitates a change in the method used by the workers of our residencies to keep in touch with the leaders of the local [[Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#Secret_apparatus|Communist]] organizations on intelligence matters. &lt;br/&gt;<br /> 2. Our workers, by continuing to meet the leader of the Communists, are exposing themselves to danger and are giving cause [''orgs of''] local authorities to suspect that the Comintern is still in existence. &lt;br&gt;<br /> 3. We propose: &lt;br/&gt;<br /> a. That personal contact with leaders of the local Communist organizations should cease and that Communist material should not be accepted for forwarding to the Comintern. &lt;br/&gt;<br /> b. That meetings of our workers may take place only with special reliable undercover [ZAKONSPIRIROVANNYJ] contacts of the Communist [D% organizations], who are not suspected by the [''orgs of''] local authorities, exclusively about specific aspects of our intelligence work (acquiring [1 group unidentified] contacts, leads [NAVODKI], rechecking of those who are being cultivated, etc.). For each meeting it is necessary to obtain our consent. &lt;br/&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Representative of the Soviet Union.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> No. 4084 &lt;br&gt;<br /> Lt. Gen. [[P.M. Fitin]]. &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> Notes: [a] This message is known to have been sent also to NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, and OTTAWA.&lt;/ref&gt; relating to this event is one of the most interesting and historically important messages in the enter corpus of [[VENONA]] translations. This message clearly discloses the [[KGB]]'s connection to the COMINTERN and to the national Communist parties.&lt;ref&gt;Counterintelligence Reader, [http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch4_a.htm Volume 2, Chapter 4]. National Counterintelligence Center, United States Government. n.d.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Edgar Snow]] introduced Mao and [[Zhou Enlai]] to American readers in 1937 in his book, ''Red Star Over China'', shortly after the [[Chinese Red Army]]’s route by [[Chiang Kai-shek]] in 1934 and their year long retreat to [[Yan'an]] known as the [[Long March]]. Snow wrote, &quot;the political ideology, tactical line and theoretical leadership of the Chinese Communists have been under the close guidance, if not positive detailed direction, of the Communist International, which during the last decade has become virtually a bureau of the Russian Communist Party.&quot; And he further declared that the CCP had to subordinate itself to the &quot;strategic requirements of [[Soviet Russia]], under the leadership of [[Stalin]].&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Red Star Over China by Edgar Snow, New York, 1937.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Jiangxi Soviet Republic==<br /> [[Image:Cn-rsk.gif|right|thumb|Flag of the Peoples Republic of China from 1928 - 7 Nov 1931.&lt;br&gt; The Soviet Republic of China, referred to as the Jiangxi Soviet Republic, was declared 1 Dec 1931).]]<br /> In 1931 the Executive Committee of the Comintern in Moscow directed Mao Zedong to organize a Soviet on the Russian model.&lt;ref&gt;''Soviet Russia and the Far East'' by David J. Dallin (New Haven, 1948); ''Inside Red China'' by Nym Wales (New York, 1939); [http://www.worldstatesmen.org/China.html#PRC Kiangsi Soviet Republic].&lt;/ref&gt; Mao Zedong and [[Zhu De]], and later [[Zhou Enlai]], set up a Soviet government in two central provinces of China. In 1933, the CCP sent a message to [[Josef Stalin]] which read, &quot;Lead us on, O our pilot, from victory to victory!&quot;&lt;ref&gt;''Soviet Russia and the Far East'', David J. Dallin, New Haven, 1948; 17th Congress of Communist Party of Soviet Union, Stenog. Report, p. 1323, quoted in ''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 21] pdf.&lt;/ref&gt; The 1934 Constitution of the [[Chinese Soviet Republic]] stated that the &quot;Chinese Soviet Government has the ... goal of eventual nationalization of all land.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;Ilpyong J. Kim, ''The Politics of Chinese Communism'', Berkeley 1973, p. 25.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The CCP promised the intellectuals a “heaven on earth.” Later it labeled them “[[rightist]]” and put them into the infamous ninth category of persecuted people, alongside landlords and spies. It deprived landlords and capitalists of their property, [[exterminate]]d the landlord and rich peasant classes, destroyed rank and order in the countryside, took authority away from local figures, kidnapped and extorted bribes from the richer people, [[brainwash]]ed war prisoners, “reformed” industrialists and capitalists, infiltrated the [[KMT]] and disintegrated it, split from the Communist International and betrayed it, cleaned out all dissidents through successive political movements after it came to power in 1949, and threatened its own members with coercion. <br /> <br /> The CCP started to build its theoretical system of [[genocide]] at its early stage as a composite of its theories on [[class]], [[revolution]], struggle, [[violence]], [[dictatorship]], [[movements]], and [[political parties]]. &lt;ref&gt;''On the Beginnings of the Chinese Communist Party'', Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party, The Epoch Times, December 13, 2004.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Discipline Inspection Commission==<br /> <br /> Discipline inspection organizations of the Party consist of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, local Party commissions for discipline inspection at various levels and the grassroots Party commissions for discipline inspection. According to the People's Revolutionary Army (PRA), the Discipline Inspection Commission is tasked with enforcing discipline and handling cases, foster the capability to assist the Party committees to improve the Party's style of work, organize and coordinate the fight against corruption, and do a better job of fighting against corruption and improving the Party's style of work in the army, so as to make new contributions to the army building in an all-round way.<br /> <br /> The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection works under the leadership of the Party Central Committee. <br /> <br /> The local Party commissions for discipline inspection at various levels and the grassroots Party commissions for discipline inspection work under the dual leadership of the Party committee at the same level and Party commission for discipline inspection at the next higher level. <br /> <br /> The term of each Party commission for discipline inspection is the same as that of the Party committee at the same level. <br /> <br /> The plenary session of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection elects its standing committee, secretary and deputy secretaries and reports this to the Party Central Committee for approval. <br /> <br /> The plenary sessions of local Party commissions for discipline inspection at various levels elect the standing committee and secretary and deputy secretaries, and the results are passed by the Party committee at the same level and reported to the Party committee at the next higher level for approval. <br /> <br /> Whether a discipline inspection commission or discipline inspection members for a grassroots Party committee shall be established or put into position is to be decided by a Party organization at the next higher level in light of specific conditions. <br /> <br /> A general Party branch committee and a Party branch committee shall include discipline inspection members. <br /> <br /> The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection may, if needed, accredit a discipline inspection group or discipline inspectors to central Party and state organs. <br /> <br /> Leaders of the discipline inspection group or discipline inspectors may attend, as non-voting members, related conferences organized by Party leaders of the organ concerned. <br /> <br /> Their work must be supported by the Party leaders and organizations of the organ concerned.<br /> <br /> ==NORINCO==<br /> In 1994, some employees of Norinco came under federal investigation from both the [[FBI]] as well as the [[BATF]] after a successful sting dubbed “Operation Dragon Fire.” In May of 1996, in what was called &quot;the largest seizure of fully operational automatic weapons in U.S. history,&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,135999,00.html Anatomy of a Sting], Michael S. Serrill, [[Time magazine]], Jun. 24, 2001.&lt;/ref&gt; 14 individuals and an [[Atlanta, Georgia]] company were indicted for the unlicensed importation and sale of 2000 [[AK-47]]'s into the United States. [[U.S. Customs]] agents posing as arms traffickers convinced a group of Chinese arms dealers, including three Norinco representatives, that they were in the market to buy guns for [[drug ring]]s and [[street gang]]s.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/misc/smuggle.html Massive Seizure of New Automatic Weapons Illegally Smuggled by PRC Weapons Producers], [[U.S. Department of Justice]] Press Release, May 23, 1996. Retrieved from CourtTV September 25, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt; &quot;The defendants offered the government undercover agents more sophisticated weapons, including hand-held rocket launchers, mortars, anti-aircraft missiles, silenced machine guns and even tanks,&quot; said Wayne Yamashita of the U.S. Customs Service.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/23/china.arms/ Feds seize 'incredible arsenal', U.S. agent says China was aware of weapons-smuggling operation], [[CNN]], May 23, 1996.&lt;/ref&gt; The Customs Service discovered during the investigation that these weapons were bound for [[Oakland, California]] street gangs.&lt;ref&gt;[http://web.archive.org/web/20070301055156/www.washtimes.com/national/20030523-123039-1385r.htm Chinese firm hit with U.S. sanctions], By Bill Gertz, ''The [[Washington Times]]'', May 23, 2003.&lt;/ref&gt; According to an [[affidavit]] signed by two of the undercover agents involved in the investigation, representatives from Norinco offered to sell urban gangs shoulder-held missile launchers capable of downing a large commercial airliner.<br /> <br /> In August 2003, the Bush administration imposed sanctions on Norinco for allegedly selling missile-related goods to [[Iran]].&lt;ref&gt;Chinese firm hit with U.S. sanctions, By Bill Gertz, ''The Washington Times'', May 23, 2003.&lt;/ref&gt; While not formally joining the multinational effort to restrict the proliferation of missiles, China did commit in 2000 not to assist in any way the development by other countries of [[MTCR]]-class missiles. Neither the Chinese government nor Norinco has denied doing business with Iranian companies, although they did deny that it was for missile related purposes at the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group, Iran’s key manufacturer of ballistic and non ballistic missiles.&lt;ref&gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2931154.stm US punishes firms in Iran and China], [[BBC]], 23 May, 2003&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/tehran-hemat.htm Hemmat Industrial Complex]. Retrieved from globalsecurity.org September 25, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm Background Note: China], [[U.S. Department of State]], Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.&lt;/ref&gt; Norinco has called the sanctions &quot;groundless and unjustified&quot; and &quot;entirely unreasonable.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://english.people.com.cn/200306/06/eng20030606_117779.shtml NORINCO Issues Statement on US Sanctions], ''Peoples Daily Online'', Beijing June 06, 2003. English language Version.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.norinco.com/c1024/english/newscenter/press_03.html Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Met the Press Expressed Strong Dissatisfaction and Firm Opposition on U.S. Sanctions on NORINCO and Related Companies] Norinco press Release. Retrieved from norinco.com September 25, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ==External link==<br /> *[http://ninecommentaries.com/ Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party], an historical critique of the CCP from the Editorial Board of ''The Epoch Times'', (2005)<br /> *[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6733045.stm 'Slaves' rescued from China firm], By Michael Bristow ''BBC News'', Beijing, Jun 8, 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[category:Political Parties]]<br /> [[category:China]]<br /> [[Category:Communism]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Qin_Dynasty&diff=336861 2007-11-15T13:44:23Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>The '''Qin''' replaced the [[Zhou dynasty]] in 221 BC and ruled until 206 BC. It was the first unified [[Chinese]] empire, and utilised the key classical Chinese philosophy known as [[Legalism]] to great effect in amassing its force and overriding all the other states of the [[Warring States]] period.<br /> <br /> The Qin dynasty was founded by the ruler of the Zhou vassal state Qin, Prince Ying Zheng. The Qin dynasty was excellent in battle and conquered all the the states, unifying the country. The state of Qin was originally a fief of the Zhou state, a military province intended to provide a buffer against western &quot;barbarians&quot; and to produce horses; it was in an out of the way area, and the region was part-desert. There was little indication that this state would prove to be the most powerful, or that it would unify China in the end. However, victories at such key battles as [[the battle of Changping]], the bloodiest engagement in history until the [[Second World War]], against the [[state of Zhao]], allowed Qin to develop and conquer the other 6 states by 221BC under Ying Zheng.<br /> <br /> The Qin dynasty began building the [[Great Wall of China]], although this was a much earlier wall, made of tamped earth, not the more modern stone structure constructed under the Ming dynasty, over 1500 years later. The wall was a large project, and produced by corvee labour, but it built on earlier structures produced by various states in the [[Warring States]] period to keep out the nomads of the steppes to the north and west.<br /> <br /> The Qin dynasty's highly legal approach led to a rebellion which replaced it with the [[Han dynasty]], although many modern scholars agree that it was not the tight rule of Ying Zheng (or &quot;Qin Shi Huang Di&quot;) that was unpopular; rather, it was the breakdown of the law instituted by the Qin under Ying Zheng's successor that caused unrest and rebellion in 206 BC. The period following the Qin was a short period of warlords, the two most famous being [[Liu Bang]], the governor of Pei, and [[Xiang Yu]], a nobleman of the former state of Chu. Liu Bang defeated Xiang Yu and founded the [[Han dynasty]], although both are famous in Chinese history and culture, with Xiang Yu being the subject of much of Chinese opera, the famous aria, &quot;Xiang Yu bids farewell to his [[concubine]]&quot; being based on an event in his life according the famous Chinese history, the [[Records of the Historian]] by [[Sima Qian]] of the Han.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Chinese History]]<br /> [[Category:Chinese dynasties]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ch%27uing_Dynasty&diff=336859 2007-11-15T13:42:45Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>This article is far from great. I'd prefer the use of &quot;Qing&quot; in place of &quot;Ch'ing&quot;, and the title &quot;Chu'ing&quot; is just plain wrong. The information is scant and not great - it could use mention of the facts that: the Qing dynasty lasted from 1644 until 1911, when the Xinhai revolution toppled it; the last emperor, Puyi, was a Manchu who lived into the 1960s; the Manchus came from Manchuria and had previously been a nomadic hunter-gatherer tribe, who were related to the Mongols linguistically and ethnically, and who built up their power slowly over many years, contributing to the fall of the Ming in a big way; that there was great anti-Manchu sentiment throughout the Qing period; that there Qing experienced great upheaval and massive population growth, and that the decline of China in the 19th century was under Manchu/Qing government control; and a lot else. Lots of stuff to talk about - the dynasty lasted a long time. Just some suggestions. I'm not an expert on the Qing period, my area of expertise being the classical era, but if no one else steps forward with the ability and information to re-work this article, I'll do it at some point. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 07:59, 1 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Agreed on Pinyin Usage ==<br /> <br /> You're right. Nobody used Wade-Giles any more and Pinyin is now the accepted international standard for romanising Chinese. In fact there is now an article on the Qing, so I would suggest deleting it, and then redirecting Ch'ing Dynasty to Qing. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 08:39, 15 November 2007 (EST)</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ch%27uing_Dynasty&diff=336858 2007-11-15T13:39:44Z

<p>Luojie: Agreed on Pinyin Usage</p> <hr /> <div>This article is far from great. I'd prefer the use of &quot;Qing&quot; in place of &quot;Ch'ing&quot;, and the title &quot;Chu'ing&quot; is just plain wrong. The information is scant and not great - it could use mention of the facts that: the Qing dynasty lasted from 1644 until 1911, when the Xinhai revolution toppled it; the last emperor, Puyi, was a Manchu who lived into the 1960s; the Manchus came from Manchuria and had previously been a nomadic hunter-gatherer tribe, who were related to the Mongols linguistically and ethnically, and who built up their power slowly over many years, contributing to the fall of the Ming in a big way; that there was great anti-Manchu sentiment throughout the Qing period; that there Qing experienced great upheaval and massive population growth, and that the decline of China in the 19th century was under Manchu/Qing government control; and a lot else. Lots of stuff to talk about - the dynasty lasted a long time. Just some suggestions. I'm not an expert on the Qing period, my area of expertise being the classical era, but if no one else steps forward with the ability and information to re-work this article, I'll do it at some point. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 07:59, 1 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Agreed on Pinyin Usage ==<br /> <br /> You're right. Nobody used Wade-Giles any more and Pinyin is now the accepted international standard for romanising Chinese [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 08:39, 15 November 2007 (EST)</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Arsenal_F.C.&diff=336855 2007-11-15T13:35:35Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Arsenal Football Club''' is a [[soccer]] team (called [[football]] in [[England]]) based in [[London]], England. The team is managed by [[Arsene Wenger]].<br /> <br /> Finishing fourth in the [[English Premier League]] in the 2006/7 season, the team features major international stars of football.<br /> <br /> Former star [[Thierry Henry]] has recently left the team after eight years of huge success, departing to [[Real Madrid]] in the summer of 2007. <br /> <br /> In 2006 the team moved from their old stadium, ''Arsenal Stadium'', located in, and more commonly known as ''Highbury''. The team's new stadium is named after the Dubai airline and sponsor, [[Emirates Airlines|Emirates]].<br /> <br /> {{Nb sl english premier}}</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Official_Language&diff=325917 2007-11-01T14:34:50Z

<p>Luojie: Additional information</p> <hr /> <div>The official language of a state is the [[language]] in which government business is conducted, as well as the language used in the legal system.<br /> <br /> Often, smaller countries such as [[Estonia]], which have a small number of native speakers relative to the number of [[migrant worker]]s, institute an official language policy to protect their culture. Others, such as [[Belgium]] or [[Switzerland]] may have two or more official languages to reflect the multi-ethnic composition of their population. Sometimes, as in both Belgium and Switzerland, different parts of the country will have different official languages. <br /> <br /> In places where the population is mixed or there are historical reasons for the use of one of the official languages, all the official languages will have equal status throughout that country or region's whole territory. Examples of this are [[Singapore]], [[Hong Kong]] and [[South Africa]]. A further variant of the use of official languages may be found in the [[United Kingdom]], where [[English]] is the official language on a national basis, but [[Welsh]] and [[Scottish Gaelic]] are official in [[Wales]] and parts of [[Scotland]] respectively. Similar situations can be found in [[Spain]] and some other countries.<br /> <br /> The United States has no official language, however [[English]] is spoken by 82.1% of Americans.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Law]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Official_language&diff=325912 2007-11-01T14:21:12Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>We already have an &quot;Official Language&quot; page. this one should be deleted. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 20:07, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> OK, no problem[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:21, 1 November 2007 (EDT)</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Official_language&diff=322504 2007-10-26T14:38:50Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''official language''' is a language which a country or territory decides is to be used for official purposes within its borders and which is legally defined as such.</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Official_language&diff=322503 2007-10-26T14:38:02Z

<p>Luojie: New page: An '''official language''' is a language which a country or territory decides is to be used for official purposes within its borders.</p> <hr /> <div>An '''official language''' is a language which a country or territory decides is to be used for official purposes within its borders.</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sweden&diff=302966 2007-09-29T15:11:13Z

<p>Luojie: Capitalisation of proper nouns</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Swedenmap.jpg|200px|thumb|right]]'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants. With an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).<br /> <br /> Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is 41 year old Fredrik Reinfeldt, leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI Gustaf]] is the current king. <br /> <br /> == Swedish Viking History ==<br /> <br /> In Sweden the [[Viking]] Age was getting under way by the 9th century, and vast repositories of Roman, Byzantine and Arab coins attest to the wealth and power Swedish Vikings accumulated over the next century. Vikings traveled mostly to the east, making their mark in Russia, as well as trading with (and pillaging) Byzantine territories. They also traveled west and there is considerable evidence of artifacts (such as coins) on the North American continent. Vikings pillaged villages all over Ireland, and are the antecedents of many living Irish men and women, such as the former Taoiseach of Ireland, Charles Haughey and his cousin Sile de Valera, pop stars Bob Geldof and Phil Lynott, and artist Charlie Whisker. Remnants of a small settlement (called Ektorp) exist on Newfoundland which include the remains of small dwellings, deteriorated furniture and cooking utensils. <br /> <br /> Christianity only took root in the 11th century. <br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> <br /> Sweden officially remained neutral throughout [[World War II]], although it helped both sides during the war. During the period 1939-1943 when the Axis powers looked like the winning side Sweden supplied Germany with much needed Iron ore. The Iron ore made sure that the German war machine could keep on going and become such an issue that Great Britain considered invading Sweden to destroy the mines up north in Kiruna. Sweden also transported German soldiers on leave from Norway and reinforcements going to Finland. After 1943 when Germany started to face defeat after defeat and it became clear that Germany would not win the war Sweden started to help the Allies by providing them with intelligence. Sweden also began to take some steps toward rescuing [[Jews]] around 1944. One of the most significant of these actions was the sending of diplomat [[Raoul Wallenberg]] to German-occupied territory to obtain passports for Jews.<br /> <br /> == Christianity in Sweden ==<br /> <br /> 80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). This church is very different to other churches because it has decided to marry [[homosexuality|homosexuals]]. This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against abortions, divorce, and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to &quot;conservative&quot; Christian churches. Many Swedes are [[atheists]].<br /> <br /> Sweden has 18 weeks of free [[abortion]] and 4 weeks during which women need to get special permission to be allowed an abortion. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and much suggests that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition. In the 1960's the government decided to reduce in school education about [[Christianity]]. In 2000, the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church. <br /> <br /> In 2005 a Swedish Baptist priest, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month and then acquitted.<br /> <br /> == Politics ==<br /> <br /> Sweden has high taxes and strong trade unions. Despite recently electing a new government, is still a country where socialism is strong. Fredrik Reinfeldt says that he is not going to destroy the Swedish model - in fact he says he likes that model - he only wants make some small changes. Although one of the parties in the government alliance is named &quot;The Christian Democrats&quot;, no decisions have been made to make Christianity stronger in Sweden. <br /> <br /> Swedes are paying approximately 30% in taxes and additional 20-25% if ones salary exceeds 300 000 SEK (1$=6.75SEK) a year - approximately the same rate of income tax and social security tax as in the [[United States]].<br /> A lot of the money that comes from taxes goes to social welfare. Everyone in Sweden has the right to a home, food, water and clothes.<br /> <br /> == Economy ==<br /> <br /> Major economic sectors include the iron and steel industry, shipbuilding, motor manufacturing (notably the Saab and Volvo corporations), and 'forest industries' (timber, woodpulp, paper and packaging). The Swedish company IKEA has achieved worldwide reach (and inspired imitators) with its inexpensive 'Scandinavian style' furniture and housewares<br /> <br /> == Culture ==<br /> <br /> A typical Swede is taciturn, calm and polite. This is often misinterpreted as coldness, arrogance, stupidity and general lack of knowledge. All though that is sometimes true, it is rarely the case. Swedes behave in this way as being polite and to give the other person some space which is very important in Sweden. Boasting and general loud-mouthnes is generally frowned upon in Sweden.<br /> <br /> Most Swedes also have liberal conception about nudity and sex. A typical Swede for an example loses his/her virginity at about 16 years of age and not having sex before marriage is very rare and mostly constricted to Roman Catholics. The porn industry on the other hand is not as big as in USA and about the same level as most other European countries.<br /> <br /> Bigotry is not accepted at all in Sweden, with two notable exceptions:<br /> Americans are generally seen as stupid, loud-mouthed and arrogant. There is several reasons for this but the history of Jingoism and modern day activities that are viewed as &quot;world policing&quot; such as the war in Iraq has greatly contributed to this. This view of Americans is also very common in all other Scandinavian countries.<br /> <br /> Immigrants are viewed with suspicion by a large portion of the population due to the recent successes of semi-racist parties like Sverige Demokraterna (Swedish democrats)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Some Notable Swedes==<br /> * [[Alfred Nobel]], instigator of the [[Nobel Prize]]<br /> * Greta Garbo, actress<br /> * ABBA - comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog. At one time ABBA were considered the largest corportion in Sweden, and bigger than Volvo.<br /> * Roxette<br /> * Dag Hammarskjöld<br /> * [[Anders Celsius]]<br /> * Astrid Lindgren<br /> * Carl von Linné<br /> * Fredrik Ljungberg<br /> * Henrik Larsson<br /> * Stellan Skarsgård<br /> * Saint Bridgid<br /> * Lars Magnus Ericsson<br /> * Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)<br /> * Björn Borg, tennis player<br /> * Olof Palme<br /> * Ingemar Bergman<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> *[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]<br /> *[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]<br /> *http://www.lo.se <br /> *http://www.moderaterna.se<br /> *http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&amp;a=324428<br /> *http://www.gluefox.com<br /> *[http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/sweden.html History of Sweden]<br /> * Forte, Angelo. Oram, Richard. Pedersen, Frederik. ''Viking Empires''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005<br /> * Hudson, Benjamin. ''Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in North America''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.<br /> * http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918<br /> * http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm<br /> * http://www.skattebetalarna.se<br /> * http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html<br /> * http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html<br /> * http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____12355.aspx<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:European Countries]]<br /> [[Category:EU Members]]<br /> [[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_language&diff=302940 2007-09-29T14:15:48Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>Perhaps something on Ancient Greek prior to the New Testament might improve this article. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}<br /> <br /> Greek at 8th century B.C. is the earliest literary language? How about Hebrew? Perhaps a definition of literary language (and an explanation of why that is the earliest) would be a needed addition. I also put back in information that was removed on moods and voices without comment. If it's in error please remove it with a comment in the talk as to why it is being removed, but if it was accurate, then it appeared to have a place in the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Ancient Greek is closer to modern Greek than Old English is to modern English. I think it's more like Latin and Italian. The following comment is peculiar: &quot;'common' Greek, the sort of Greek that can be compared to well-spoken illegal immigrants from Central American in the United States. Accented, using slang, etc.&quot; It's possible that ''legal'' immigrants from Europe, Asia, and Africa also speak English with an accent. I think koine was more of a simplified standard language than slang. Ancient Greek and Latin are both Indo-European languages and share many cognates and grammatical categories. Ancient Greek also shares many grammatical features and vocabulary with Sanskrit and is closer to Sanskrit than it is to Latin. Ancient Greek also has an imperative mood. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}<br /> <br /> Earliest literary language still in common use. I think Chinese could contend for that title too.[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:15, 29 September 2007 (EDT)</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Terrorism&diff=302935 2007-09-29T14:12:33Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Protect|Hojimachong}}<br /> <br /> ==A definition==<br /> Here's the definition as of March 13, 2007: &quot;Terrorism is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal.&quot; <br /> <br /> That's obviously not a good definition, unless you want to include ''all'' armed action. By saying ''usually'' against civilians, violent action against armies is not ruled out as a form of terrorism. For example, by that definition George Washington's fight at Valley Forge would be considered terrorism (because it was violent and it sought to further a political goal). I assume that's not what the person who wrote that definition intended. <br /> <br /> It's also not a good definition because it seems some terrorist violence is not intended to further political or ideological goals. For instance, were the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway a form of terrorism, and if so, what political or ideological goal did they support? --[[User:Rotifer|Rotifer]] 05:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I OBJECT to the inclusion of the IRA as a terrorist group. Some splinter groups of the IRA have committed terrorist attacks, but for most of its history the IRA was a group of freedom fighters. The British government occupied Ireland against the Irish people's will, and Irish people (regular folks and leaders) banded together to fight (yes, with weapons, violence, etc.) against the occupying troops and police forces of the British. Attacking civilians is a different issue. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::That's simply untrue. An argument could be made that the IRA of 1916-1921 weren't terrorists. But at least since 1956 they have been. Indiscriminate killing of civilians who were in the wrong store or the wrong bar or restaurant at the wrong time certainly fits the definition. Yes they targeted soldiers and policemen, but most of those they killed were civilians. La Mon, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Baltic St, Canary Wharf.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Like Rotifer said, could someone please try to come up with a correct definition of terrorist? The definition so far seems to include freedom fighters as if they are terrorists. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Freedom Fighters are Terrorists our government likes. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I removed the sentence about freedom fighters since it is misleading - terrorism and freedom-fighting are not mutually exclusive. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Wait a minute!!! You seem to be implying that conservatives are sometimes in favor of terrorism!!! That's not what you meant to imply, is it? I'm putting the statement about the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting back in. You are very, very, welcome to clarify it... I think the whole page needs clarification... But we can't allow confusion between terrorism and freedom fighting in this page. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Terrorism and freedom fighting are not &quot;opposites&quot;, Terrorism is a tactic, or method. So &quot;Terrorists&quot; might be freedom fighters, or might not be, and &quot;Freedom fighters&quot; might employ terrorism, or might not. You can say that the IRA were freedom fighters, but you can't deny that they committed terrorist acts. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::The &quot;freedom fighter&quot; definition needs work. I've commented on its talk page, but it's also relevant to this discussion.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> New to this site so not sure as to the talk protocol but I'd like to point out the truism that one man's &quot;terrorist&quot; is another man's &quot;freedom fighter&quot; and that a objective analysis based on political affiliation is incredibly biased. And, as a UK resident, I'd object to anyone wishing to remove the IRA from the list of terrorist organisations. From personal experiance, the Manchester bombing carried out by the IRA purely targeted civillians which would label them firmly as terrorists.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :To agree with what has been said above on the '''Terrorist/Freedom Fighter''' debate, these are subjective labels depending on your opinion of the groups under discussion, whereas &quot;terrorism&quot; is a defined military/paramilitary tactic, regardless of '''who''' uses it, whether for freedom, national self-determination, religious hatred or anything. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighters==<br /> <br /> I think what needs to be pointed out is what somebody did say before: terrorism is a tactic; freedom fighters are people. Freedom fighter can be a terrorist, but a terrorist does not have to be a freedom fighter. There is an enthymeme there, but I don't have time to go into it just now. I will come back to discuss this later on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == IRA ==<br /> <br /> I have added Continuity IRA and Real IRA as they are both considered to be terrorist organizations by the British and American governments.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Government==<br /> '' A government can support a terrorist, or the terrorist's goals, but cannot itself be terroristic. ''<br /> <br /> The Nazi regime was not terroristic? Saddam putting people in woodchippers is not terrorism? The Soviet, Chinese, Korean &amp; Cuban gulag systems are not employing terrorism to intimidate the populace and keep them in check? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Yknow, I didn't like the way that was originally written, but I disagree more with the re-edit. Governments can engage in terroristic activities. Thats why we have the term &quot;State Sponsored Terrorism.&quot;--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The term is not accurate. &quot;State sponsored terrorism&quot; is an [[oxymoron]]. States, by definition, cannot be terroristic (including the Nazis, or whomever else you want to name) because their forces are ALWAYS military. Calling state actions terrorism is the equivalent of saying the US Navy Seals are state sponsored terrorists-- does that make it more clear? The term SST entered the lexicon probably in the same way &quot;irregardless&quot; did, as a useless modifier. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is possible for states to harbour, fund or support terrorists due to the fact that, although not being part of the state, they are considered to have the same aims as the controlling party of said state. Hence whilst not strictly &quot;state sponsored terrorism&quot; this could be construed as &quot;state sanctioned terrorism&quot;.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) offtopic, I need to remember to sign my contribs ; )<br /> <br /> ::Please sign your posts with four tildes &quot;[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&quot; I understand that states can harbor terrorists, but they cannot be terroristic. Terrorism, by definition (which is admittedly difficult) is not a state act. Look at a country like Somalia, they essentially have no government, but are they a nation of terrorists? They can't be a '''nation''' is the problem. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :Flippin, So is it just my imagination this document exists ([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf pgs. 171 - 178 pdf]), or are denying the legitimcay of US State Dept. authority to publish it?<br /> <br /> :An excerpt:<br /> <br /> Chapter 6<br /> <br /> STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR OVERVIEW<br /> <br /> Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and<br /> guidance to terrorist organizations.<br /> <br /> State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons,<br /> materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is<br /> that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and other<br /> destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands of terrorists. The United States will<br /> continue to insist that these countries end the support they give to terrorist groups. --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I am saying the distinction is rhetorical, not ideological. In 2008, the terms will probably change. Look at the recent episode with the &quot;global war on terror&quot; language. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> This is still an issue of semantics. Whether a state is complicit in acts that would be viewed as terrorism (therefore rendering it not an act of terrorism) or whether it &quot;merely&quot; supports their aims and provides a haven, it makes little difference in the end. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 18:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It makes a great deal of difference. The problem is this: when a state acts it is not terrorism. Simply put, that is like saying putting one foot in front of the other and moving your body is walking. So, every time I put one foot in front of the other I am walking. So, cross country skiing becomes a form of walking. OR every time I move forward, I am walking. If I am in a car, moving forward, we don't call that walking. Semantics are important in this case. When a state acts, the resulting action is from their military force-always. If a state is complicit in acts of terrorism, they are declaring war because that is a military action. This distinction is key to why our country is divided on what to do about Iraq right now. Terrorists act outside the state--they may have the same goals, but if they act within the state they are not terrorists, they are troops. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::So Saddam gassing the Kurds (including infants) was not an act of terrorism? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, neither was Hitler gassing the Jews. They were acts of genocide, they were atrocious and vulgar, but definitely not terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Citations needed==<br /> <br /> We need citations for each one of these:<br /> * [[Al-Qaeda]]<br /> * [[Contra]]<br /> * [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]<br /> * [[SAVAK]] (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)<br /> * [[FRAPH]] (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)<br /> <br /> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I tried to give the following references, but someone else was working on the article (someone who actually knows how to use the 'reference' tags!) and there was an edit conflict, so ill put them here for now:<br /> <br /> * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm Al-Qaeda]<br /> * [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html Contra]<br /> * [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html Mujahadeen el-Khalq ]<br /> * [http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/savak.htm SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)]<br /> * [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) ]<br /> * [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)]<br /> <br /> [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 01:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Now added to the article [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 02:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Orgone, Thank you, and good job. Now two problems exist; (1) the al Qeade reference is unacceptable in the regard, the source state unequivocally &quot;Al-Qaeda....was created in 1989 ....<br /> The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism&quot;. It was [[Mujahideen]] that recieved support, not al Qeade. (2) Subhead reads, &quot;Groups Considered to be Terrorist Organizations Funded by the United States&quot;; '''''considered by whom?''''' we need a source for this claim.<br /> <br /> Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this<br /> claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion. There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it. So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing. Thank you for your attention to this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> ===al Qaede===<br /> ''reverted material:''<br /> * [[Al-Qaeda]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Contras===<br /> Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list. This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology. I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.<br /> <br /> * [[Contra]]&lt;ref&gt;National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===SAVAK===<br /> The claim SAVAK &quot;received US funding&quot; is highly questionable, being that (a) it was a bureau of the Iranian government. (b) Iran's oil wealth hardly necessitates US subsidies to run an internal bureau. ''Prima facia'' this claim appears bogus, but it will be researched. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==img==<br /> Good img. Why don't we move it up to the top? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::Good idea. Done. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Sorry, bad image. I really think this ought to be deleted. Terrorism is not just a political strategy, but a rhetorical one. This image '''is''' the reason many Americans died, but the image itself was what the terrorists wanted us to see. THIS image is their achievement and by putting it on this page, font and center, you endorse their message (which is: we can do this to even the most powerful nation on earth.) Ask yourself this one question: Had you, or your neighbors ever heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? Most likely not. THIS image made them a household name. It really must be removed. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::So if the 9/11 picture 'endorses' the terrorists' message, do pictures of starving Jewish prisoners from the Holocaust endorse Hitler's message? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::No, the message with Hitler was military and political. With 9/11 the point was for everyone to see the terrorists strength--their ability to bring us to our knees, and all that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I disagree... but what sort of image would you recommend if this one is not good enough? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> A picture of something that does not connote the terrorists' values. So, no images of them with Nick Berg, that sort of thing. Honestly, the best approach might be something like the picture of the guy on the balcony in Munich, 1972. Gives the image, without the current debate. That would be a good example. The other is simply too much, too soon. I appreciate your consideration on this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg]] This the image you're referring to? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 14:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yeah, I think it gives the impression of the what the page will discuss without the rhetorical issue I mentioned before. Thanks. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==IMG X2==<br /> Wow, looks great. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==source for edit==<br /> http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Myths-Illusion-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/0139068015/ref=sr_1_1/104-9898859-8430311?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1178134302&amp;sr=1-1 Peter Sederberg's book is the first I found to directly address the issue of defining terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Link for edit ==<br /> <br /> At &quot;See also&quot;<br /> <br /> [[Yasser Arafat]]<br /> <br /> ::Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Spectrum theory==<br /> Elmadri, while the recent inclusion are ambitious, some of it warrants discussion. This appears to be an effort to re-establish the old [[political spectrum theory]] and apply it to terrorist thinking, motives, and ideology. Let's examine this for example,<br /> <br /> *''[Leftist] radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, idealogy or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government.''<br /> <br /> *''[Rightist} Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to &quot;order&quot; and status quo.''<br /> <br /> And we see [[al-Qaeda]] placed under &quot;Leftist.&quot; Leftist then proceeds to propound Marxist-Leninist motivations. Now, it can be argued Al-Qaeda can fit under either of these definitions, but debating which is more appropriate may not be helpful. The fundamental problem is the spectrum theory itself. And this simply appears, once again, of trying to pigeon-hole a square peg into a round hole.<br /> <br /> So, while some, if not most of the material is good, it probably needs reorganization. That is, we should probably remove the subheads and not try to assign some or all extreme terrorist groups to an ideological class defined by the spectrum theory. While discussion of tradition Marxist-Leftist terrorism is valuable, nonetheless, the spectrum theory is not definitive of all politcal motivations. Some groups come together simply out of the practical necessity of the moment, irregardless and irrespective of an underlying ideology of its members, that is to say, not all political activity (in this case, I'm referring to extremist political activity) is ideologically driven. This is the fundamental flaw of the spectrum theory. Therefore, we should not perpetuate a flawed theory by assigning questionable motives to groups on other pages outside the [[Political spectrum]] article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well, to be quite frank, I'm working from some of my textbooks here. Now the thing is, that they do address the changes in though about terrorism, and I want to rewrite some of it to take into account what you are talking about. Obviously, there has been changes in how terrorist operate and how we view terrorism, and what I've put in doesn't reflect that, but rather more the post Cold War view. I was going to go in and put that stuff in, but I think I upset Andy with the article on the Patriot Movement, which was my bad. I wasn't thinking at the time. Therefore, I'm trying to kinda stay away from the more politically charged stuff for the time being. Feel free to go in and change stuff of course, but I would like it if you left the the stuff in and perhaps simply categorized it as spectrum theory and added that its a little outdated.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:34, 24 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::Thank you. If you've read the [[political spectrum theory]] article, you'd probably see how difficult it is to label persons, groups, and even ideologies as &quot;left&quot; or &quot;right&quot;, and never was this more true than in the post-Cold War era. The simple fact is, not all poltical action is ideologically driven. Take the [[NRA]] for example, widely regarded as the most powerful special interest group in the US, yet nonetheless, it's broadbased grassroots come from a huge cross section. A woman who carries a gun in self defence to protect herself against rape, can hardly be pigeon-holed into an ideological mold.<br /> <br /> :::Being that the question is so unsettled, and &quot;left/right&quot; spectrum theory really is little more than journalistic shorthand to argue prejudices without having to discuss issues, I suggest we just drop it from the article. We can come up with better subheads. I'll be a little busy in the early part of this week, but by mid week should be able to focus a little closer and help you out. Thanks again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> AL QAIDA is not leftist.<br /> <br /> Anyone care to explain exacly how al Qaida qualifies as a LEFTIST terrorist group?<br /> <br /> --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Good observation PF, and we are discussing it. The idea here is to eliminate the ideological groupings, and fund some other system of classification. Perhaps reviewing some of the source websites would be helpful. Care to assist? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Why do you consider imposing a system of classification so important? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Terrorism, as of the last decade or so, has undergone a radical shift in how it operates. We're starting to see a breakdown of the old system that RobS was pointing out. For example, it is getter hard to classify terrorists within a political spectrum, as the world is no longer really divided between communism and capitalism anymore. Also, terrorist are changing their goals and strategies. Where once, a terrorist would choose a target that would be symbolic and surgical, now terrorist are concerned with indiscriminate destruction. Also, now rather than operating in clandestine groups, they choose to operate in this small cell network. Like I said, I was planning on retooling it, but at the moment, I was more concerned with getting the most information in as possible.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:29, 30 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Here's some ideas, we could use these classifications:<br /> <br /> *Communist/Socialist<br /> *Environmental<br /> *Nationalist/Separatist<br /> *Racist <br /> *Religious<br /> <br /> [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> And in the meantime, you've still got Al Qaeda incorrectly listed as a &quot;leftist&quot; terrorist group. Why is that grossly inaccurate &quot;information&quot; allowed to remain? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:00, 1 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I think you have fallen victim, Fox, to a world view, globalist mentality! If Al Qaeda isn't leftist aligned, what in the world is it aligned with? Rightist governments? All of the governments I see supporting it are socialist and communistic, not right-wing. And we have already dealt with the silly idea, and Big Lie that Facists are right-wing. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==PKK==<br /> Should the [[PKK]] be added to the list of terrorist groups in this article? Its recognized as one by the [[United States]] and [[EU]], and it has had significant impact on Turkey and the U.S. mission in Iraq.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 12:49, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I agree it possibly should, and defer to RobS on this. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 15:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Al Qaeda, leftist terrorist organization? ==<br /> <br /> Never heard of anyone referring to Al Qaeda as a Left wing terrorist organization and I don't understand why it's being labeled as one. First of all they fought against Communists, which are rather much to the left. Second, Al Qaeda is a religious terrorist organization with a ideological belief that pretty much contradicts Left wing ideologies. Suggest that the classifications as proposed by RobS should be used --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 18:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I think it would be better to create a separate section referring to Islamic terrorist groups and move Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to that section, while adding in Jemaah Islamia and Abu Sayaaf to the list, as well as the Palestinian groups (maybe the palestinian groups &quot;deserve&quot; their own sub-heading or should be included with nationalist / independence groups<br /> [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:12, 29 September 2007 (EDT)</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=302925 2007-09-29T13:59:44Z

<p>Luojie: A minor edit outlining the actual Greek pronunciation as opposed to the traditional romanisation</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]<br /> '''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''&lt;/ref&gt;, from the [[Greek]] words δεινός (deinos [actual pronunciation: dhinos]) and σαύρα (saura [savra]), meaning &quot;terrible lizard.&quot;<br /> <br /> ==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==<br /> [[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]<br /> In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.<br /> <br /> Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,<br /> :Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word &quot;chance&quot; in such a phrase as &quot;chance variation&quot; does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.&lt;ref&gt;Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.<br /> <br /> In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.&lt;ref&gt;Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&amp;id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&amp;pg=PA217&amp;lpg=PA217&amp;dq=%22robert+bakker%22&amp;sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Dinosaur Species==<br /> Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.&lt;ref&gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Different Perspectives == <br /> <br /> Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. <br /> <br /> ===Creationary Perspective===<br /> [[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]<br /> [[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[Creation Week|creation week]]&lt;ref&gt;''Genesis'' 1:25&lt;/ref&gt; approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.<br /> As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.<br /> <br /> They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants&lt;ref&gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&lt;/ref&gt;; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''&lt;/ref&gt;; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&lt;ref&gt;Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54&lt;/ref&gt;; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.&lt;ref Name=&quot;Today&quot;&gt;Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.<br /> <br /> Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word &quot;dinosaur.&quot; However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,&lt;ref&gt;Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''&lt;/ref&gt;, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a &quot;tail like a cedar&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==== Extinction ====<br /> <br /> Creationists reject the &quot;Great Impact Theory&quot;, pointing out multiple problems with this theory. &lt;ref&gt;Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a &quot;New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction&quot; and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. &lt;ref&gt;Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''&lt;/ref&gt; It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ====Dinosaurs-like creatures in history and modern sightings====<br /> <br /> Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.<br /> [[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]<br /> * There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.<br /> ** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.&lt;ref name=&quot;Today&quot; /&gt;<br /> ** Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].&lt;ref&gt;&quot;New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'&quot;, ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: &quot;Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago.&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''&lt;ref name=&quot;Today&quot; /&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]&lt;/ref&gt;, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from [[Chicago University]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.&lt;ref name=&quot;Today&quot; /&gt;<br /> * There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.<br /> ** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> ** The [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art &amp; History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.&lt;ref&gt;See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.<br /> ** The description of the &quot;[[Thunder bird]]&quot; of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.&lt;ref name=&quot;Today&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> * Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs<br /> ** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &quot;The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''&lt;/ref&gt;. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.&lt;ref name=&quot;WB2000&quot;&gt;''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM&lt;/ref&gt; World Book Encyclopedia says, &quot;In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth.&quot;&lt;ref Name=&quot;WB2000&quot; /&gt;<br /> ** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.<br /> [[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]] <br /> * That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.<br /> ** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel &lt;ref&gt;[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]&lt;/ref&gt;, the [[Wollemi Pine]] &lt;ref&gt;Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]&lt;/ref&gt; and the [[Coelacanth]] &lt;ref&gt;Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> * The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. &lt;ref&gt;Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- The Coelacanth are from a group that had previously been thought to have rudimentary limbs and so be the ancestor of land creatures, but this idea was dropped when living Coelacanths were discovered.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?]&lt;/ref&gt; Biologists see this as merely a minor adjustment to the story of evolution. --&gt;<br /> <br /> ==== Dinosaurs and birds ====<br /> Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44&lt;/ref&gt;, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.<br /> <br /> In his article, &quot;Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry&quot;, Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:<br /> {{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&lt;ref&gt;Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who stated the following:<br /> {{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:<br /> {{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers....&quot; &lt;ref&gt;Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. &lt;ref&gt;Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp &quot;Ostrich-osaurus&quot; Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===<br /> <br /> The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.<br /> Of course this precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing. <br /> <br /> ====Extinction====<br /> <br /> According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.&lt;ref&gt;Kevin O Pope, &quot;Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary,&quot; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]&lt;/ref&gt; According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.&lt;ref&gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid &quot;Killed Everything&quot;], ''National Geographic''&lt;/ref&gt; The dust from this impact is supposedly still visible as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin and is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.&lt;ref&gt;''Ibid''&lt;/ref&gt; The crater is also visible.&lt;ref&gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html &quot;Dinosaur-Killer&quot; Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ====An Explosion of new species ====<br /> <br /> The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new &quot;vacancy&quot; in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.&lt;ref&gt;Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, &quot;Life in the Universe,&quot; viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ====Dinosaurs and Birds====<br /> <br /> As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''&lt;/ref&gt; Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.&lt;ref&gt;[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==<br /> It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.&lt;ref name=&quot;HaD&quot;&gt;Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.&lt;ref name=&quot;HaD&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.&lt;ref name=&quot;HaD&quot; /&gt;<br /> Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.&lt;ref name=&quot;NAB&quot;&gt;Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human &amp; Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.&lt;ref name=&quot;NAB&quot; /&gt;<br /> Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.&lt;ref name=&quot;HaD&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References== <br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Dinosaurs]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Visa&diff=292414 2007-09-13T14:55:27Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>A '''visa''' is an official endorsement on a document or passport denoting that the bearer may enter and/or exit the country or territory which issued it. Visas usually have conditions attached which relate to the purpose that its holder has for going to the country concerned. For example a visitor's visa holder will usually be prohibited from working or studying in the issuing country or territory.<br /> <br /> In fact, many countries have a list of countries and territories whose citizens do not need visas to visit if their stay is within a certain time limit. However, people who wish to work, study or immigrate normally need to apply for a visa to do so beforehand. The main exception to this is for [[European Union]] citizens seeking to exercise treaty rights in another member state.<br /> <br /> [[category:law]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Visa&diff=292413 2007-09-13T14:53:15Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>A '''visa''' is an official endorsement on a document or passport denoting that the bearer may enter and/or exit the country or territory which issued it. Visas usually have conditions attached which relate to the purpose that its holder has for going to the country concerned. For example a visitor's visa holder will usually be prohibited from working or studying in the issuing country or territory.<br /> <br /> In fact, many countries have a list of countries and territories whose citizens do not need visas to visit if their stay is within a certain time limit. However, people who wish to work, study or immigrate<br /> <br /> [[category:law]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomous_Region&diff=292411 2007-09-13T14:38:37Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [[People's Republic of China]] which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [[Han Chinese]] people who form the majority of China's population, or which is populated by a substantial [[ethnic minority]] population. According to China's [[constitution]], Autonomous Regions may enact their own legislation where local conditions require, subject to the approval of the [[National People's Congress]]. Autonomous Regions also use their own [[official language]]s in addition to Chinese, although proficiency in [[Mandarin Chinese]] is required if one desires a good education or job. Unlike [[Special Administrative Region]]s, there are no separate [[visa]] requirements for Autonomous Regions, although [[foreigner]]s are required to have permits for travel to [[Tibet]]. Autonomous Regions also use the same currency ([[Renminbi]]) and [[legal system]] as the rest of [[Mainland China]]. The government head of an Autonomous Region is required to be from the same ethnic group as the Region. However, this requirement is subverted by the presence of a [[Communist Party]] Secretary who is almost always from the Han majority, and in whose hands the real power resides.<br /> <br /> == List of Autonomous Regions ==<br /> <br /> [[Guangxi]] Zhuang AR (广西壮族自治区 ''Guangxi Zhuang Zu Zizhiqu''）<br /> <br /> Nei Mongol AR ([[Inner Mongolia]]) (内蒙古自治区 ''Nei Menggu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Ningxia]] Hui AR (宁夏回族自治区 ''Ningxia Hui Zu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Tibet]] AR (西藏自治区 ''Xizang Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Xinjiang]] Uygur AR (新疆维吾尔自治区 ''Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Category: China]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomous_Region&diff=292410 2007-09-13T14:37:14Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [[People's Republic of China]] which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [[Han Chinese]] people who form the majority of China's population. According to China's [[constitution]], Autonomous Regions may enact their own legislation where local conditions require, subject to the approval of the [[National People's Congress]]. Autonomous Regions also use their own [[official language]]s in addition to Chinese, although proficiency in [[Mandarin Chinese]] is required if one desires a good education or job. Unlike [[Special Administrative Region]]s, there are no separate [[visa]] requirements for Autonomous Regions, although [[foreigner]]s are required to have permits for travel to [[Tibet]]. Autonomous Regions also use the same currency ([[Renminbi]]) and [[legal system]] as the rest of [[Mainland China]]. The government head of an Autonomous Region is required to be from the same ethnic group as the Region. However, this requirement is subverted by the presence of a [[Communist Party]] Secretary who is almost always from the Han majority, and in whose hands the real power resides.<br /> <br /> == List of Autonomous Regions ==<br /> <br /> [[Guangxi]] Zhuang AR (广西壮族自治区 ''Guangxi Zhuang Zu Zizhiqu''）<br /> <br /> Nei Mongol AR ([[Inner Mongolia]]) (内蒙古自治区 ''Nei Menggu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Ningxia]] Hui AR (宁夏回族自治区 ''Ningxia Hui Zu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Tibet]] AR (西藏自治区 ''Xizang Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Xinjiang]] Uygur AR (新疆维吾尔自治区 ''Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Category: China]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomous_Region&diff=292409 2007-09-13T14:36:38Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [[[People's Republic of China]] which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [[Han Chinese]] people who form the majority of China's population. According to China's [[constitution]], Autonomous Regions may enact their own legislation where local conditions require, subject to the approval of the [[National People's Congress]]. Autonomous Regions also use their own [[official language]]s in addition to Chinese, although proficiency in [[Mandarin Chinese]] is required if one desires a good education or job. Unlike [[Special Administrative Region]]s, there are no separate [[visa]] requirements for Autonomous Regions, although [[foreigner]]s are required to have permits for travel to [[Tibet]]. Autonomous Regions also use the same currency ([[Renminbi]]) and [[legal system]] as the rest of [[Mainland China]]. The government head of an Autonomous Region is required to be from the same ethnic group as the Region. However, this requirement is subverted by the presence of a [[Communist Party]] Secretary who is almost always from the Han majority, and in whose hands the real power resides.<br /> <br /> == List of Autonomous Regions ==<br /> <br /> [[Guangxi]] Zhuang AR (广西壮族自治区 ''Guangxi Zhuang Zu Zizhiqu''）<br /> <br /> Nei Mongol AR ([[Inner Mongolia]]) (内蒙古自治区 ''Nei Menggu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Ningxia]] Hui AR (宁夏回族自治区 ''Ningxia Hui Zu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Tibet]] AR (西藏自治区 ''Xizang Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Xinjiang]] Uygur AR (新疆维吾尔自治区 ''Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Category: China]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomous_Region&diff=292408 2007-09-13T14:35:42Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [[[People's Republic of China]] which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [[Han Chinese]] people who form the majority of China's population. According to China's [[constitution]], Autonomous Regions may enact their own legislation where local conditions require, subject to the approval of the [[National People's Congress]]. Autonomous Regions also use their own [[official language]]s in addition to Chinese, although proficiency in [[Mandarin Chinese]] is required if one desires a good education or job. Unlike [[Special Administrative Region]]s, there are no separate [[visa]] requirements for Autonomous Regions, although [[foreigner]]s are required to have permits for travel to [[Tibet]]. Autonomous Regions also use the same currency ([[Renminbi]]) and [[legal system]] as the rest of [[Mainland China]]. The government head of an Autonomous Region is required to be from the same ethnic group as the Region. However, this requirement is subverted by the presence of a [[Communist Party]] Secretary who is almost always from the Han majority, and in whose hands the real power resides.<br /> <br /> == List of Autonomous Regions ==<br /> <br /> [[Guangxi]] Zhuang AR (广西壮族自治区 ''Guangxi Zhuang Zu Zizhiqu''）<br /> <br /> Nei Mongol AR ([[Inner Mongolia]]) (内蒙古自治区 ''Nei Menggu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Ningxia]] Hui AR (宁夏回族自治区 ''Ningxia Hui Zu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Tibet]] AR (西藏自治区 ''Xizang Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Xinjiang]] Uygur AR (新疆维吾尔自治区 ''Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu'')</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomous_Region&diff=292406 2007-09-13T14:35:02Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [[[People's Republic of China]] which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [[Han Chinese]] people who form the majority of China's population. According to China's [[constitution]], Autonomous Regions may enact their own legislation where local conditions require, subject to the approval of the [[National People's Congress]]. Autonomous Regions also use their own official languages in addition to Chinese, although proficiency in [[Mandarin Chinese]] is required if one desires a good education or job. Unlike [[Special Administrative Region]]s, there are no separate [[visa]] requirements for Autonomous Regions, although [[foreigner]]s are required to have permits for travel to [[Tibet]]. Autonomous Regions also use the same currency ([[Renminbi]]) and [[legal system]] as the rest of [[Mainland China]]. The government head of an Autonomous Region is required to be from the same ethnic group as the Region. However, this requirement is subverted by the presence of a [[Communist Party]] Secretary who is almost always from the Han majority, and in whose hands the real power resides.<br /> <br /> == List of Autonomous Regions ==<br /> <br /> [[Guangxi]] Zhuang AR (广西壮族自治区 ''Guangxi Zhuang Zu Zizhiqu''）<br /> <br /> Nei Mongol AR ([[Inner Mongolia]]) (内蒙古自治区 ''Nei Menggu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Ningxia]] Hui AR (宁夏回族自治区 ''Ningxia Hui Zu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Tibet]] AR (西藏自治区 ''Xizang Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Xinjiang]] Uygur AR (新疆维吾尔自治区 ''Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu'')</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomous_Region&diff=292405 2007-09-13T14:34:42Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [[[People's Republic of China]] which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [[Han Chinese]] people who form the majority of China's population. According to China's [[constitution]], Autonomous Regions may enact their own legislation where local conditions require, subject to the approval of the [[National People's Congress]]. Autonomous Regions also use their own official languages in addition to Chinese, although proficiency in [[Mandarin Chinese]] is required if one desires a good education or job. Unlike [[Special Administrative Region]]s, there are no separate [[visa]] requirements for Autonomous Regions, although [[foreigner]]s are required to have permits for travel to [[Tibet]]. Autonomous Regions also use the same currency ([[Renminbi]]) and [[legal system]] as the rest of [[Mainland China]]. The government head of an Autonomous Region is required to be from the same ethnic group as the Region. However, this requirement is subverted by the presence of a [[Communist Party]] Secretary who is almost always from the Han majority, and in whose hands the real power resides.<br /> <br /> == List of Autonomous Regions ==<br /> <br /> [[Guangxi]] Zhuang AR (广西壮族自治区 ''Guangxi Zhuang Zu Zizhiqu''）<br /> <br /> Nei Mongol AR ([[Inner Mongolia]]) (内蒙古自治区 ''Nei Menggu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Ningxia]] Hui AR (宁夏回族自治区 ''Ningxia Hui Zu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> [[Tibet]] AR (西藏自治区 ''Xizang Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> Xinjiang Uygur AR (新疆维吾尔自治区 ''Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu'')</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomous_Region&diff=292404 2007-09-13T14:33:29Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [[[People's Republic of China]] which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [[Han Chinese]] people who form the majority of China's population. According to China's [[constitution]], Autonomous Regions may enact their own legislation where local conditions require, subject to the approval of the [[National People's Congress]]. Autonomous Regions also use their own official languages in addition to Chinese, although proficiency in [[Mandarin Chinese]] is required if one desires a good education or job. Unlike [[Special Administrative Region]]s, there are no separate visa requirements for Autonomous Regions, although foreigners are required to have permits for travel to [[Tibet]]. Autonomous Regions also use the same currency ([[Renminbi]]) and [[legal system]] as the rest of [[Mainland China]]. The government head of an Autonomous Region is required to be from the same ethnic group as the Region. However, this requirement is subverted by the presence of a [[Communist Party]] Secretary who is almost always from the Han majority, and in whose hands the real power resides.<br /> <br /> == List of Autonomous Regions ==<br /> <br /> [[Guangxi]] Zhuang AR (广西壮族自治区 ''Guangxi Zhuang Zu Zizhiqu''）<br /> <br /> Nei Mongol AR (Inner Mongolia) (内蒙古自治区 ''Nei Menggu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> Ningxia Hui AR (宁夏回族自治区 ''Ningxia Hui Zu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> Tibet AR (西藏自治区 ''Xizang Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> Xinjiang Uygur AR (新疆维吾尔自治区 ''Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu'')</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomous_Region&diff=292403 2007-09-13T14:31:48Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [[[People's Republic of China]] which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [[Han Chinese]] people who form the majority of China's population. According to China's [[constitution]], Autonomous Regions may enact their own legislation where local conditions require, subject to the approval of the [[National People's Congress]]. Autonomous Regions also use their own official languages in addition to Chinese, although proficiency in [[Mandarin Chinese]] is required if one desires a good education or job. Unlike [[Special Administrative Region]]s, there are no s俄earate visa requirements for Autonomous Regions, although foreigners are required to have permits for travel to [[Tibet]]. Autonomous Regions also use the same currency ([[Renminbi]]) and [[legal system]] as the rest of [[Mainland China]]. The government head of an Autonomous Region is required to be from the same ethnic group as the Region. However, this requirement is subverted by the presence of a [[Communist Party]] Secretary who is almost always from the Han majority, and in whose hands the real power resides.<br /> <br /> == List of Autonomous Regions ==<br /> <br /> [[Guangxi]] Zhuang AR (广西壮族自治区 ''Guangxi Zhuang Zu Zizhiqu''）<br /> <br /> Nei Mongol AR (Inner Mongolia) (内蒙古自治区 ''Nei Menggu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> Ningxia Hui AR (宁夏回族自治区 ''Ningxia Hui Zu Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> Tibet AR (西藏自治区 ''Xizang Zizhiqu'')<br /> <br /> Xinjiang</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomous_Region&diff=292402 2007-09-13T14:28:04Z

<p>Luojie: New page: An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [People's Republic of China which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [...</p> <hr /> <div>An '''Autonomous Region''' (自治区， ''Zizhiqu'') is a part of the [[[People's Republic of China]] which was historically inhabited by a majority population different to the majority [[Han Chinese]] people who form the majority of China's population. According to China's [[constitution]], Autonomous Regions may enact their own legislation where local conditions require, subject to the approval of the [[National People's Congress]]. Autonomous Regions also use their own official languages in addition to Chinese, although proficiency in [[Mandarin Chinese]] is required if one desires a good education or job. Unlike [[Special Administrative Region]]s, there are no spearate visa requirements for Autonomous Regions, although foreigners are required to have permits for travel to [[Tibet]]. Autonomous Regions also use the same currency ([[Renminbi]]) and [[legal system]] as the rest of [[Mainland China]]. The government head of an Autonomous Region is required to be from the same ethnic group as the Region. Howqever, this requirement is subverted by the presence of a [[Communist Party]] Secretary who is almost always from the Han majority, and in whose hands the real power resides.<br /> <br /> == List of Autonomous Regions ==<br /> <br /> [[Guangxi]] Zhuang AR (广西壮族自治区 ''Guangxi Zhuang Zu Zizhiqu''）<br /> Nei Mongol AR (Inner Mongolia) (内蒙古自治区 ''Nei Menggu Zizhiqu'')<br /> Ningxia Hui AR (宁夏回族自治区 ''Ningxia Hui Zu Zizhiqu'')<br /> Tibet AR (西藏自治区 ''Xizang Zizhiqu'')<br /> Xinjiang</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tibet&diff=292401 2007-09-13T14:11:43Z

<p>Luojie: additional information</p> <hr /> <div>'''Tibet''' is a country in a mountainous region that was located between [[India]] and [[China]] until it was forcefully annexed by the Chinese in 1951, and the local [[Buddhist]] culture was suppressed. It is now geographically considered to be a part of China, and has been made an [[Autonomous Region]], and is located in the southwestern portion of the country.<br /> <br /> The spiritual leader of Tibet is His Holiness the 14th [[Dalai Lama]]. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.dalailama.com/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:China]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shandong&diff=292400 2007-09-13T14:05:13Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Shandong''' (''Shantung'' in [[Wade-Giles]] transliteration) is a province of eastern [[China]], taking the form of a large peninsula protruding into the [[East China Sea]] and [[Bohai]] Gulf. The provincial capital is [[Jinan]]; other major centres are [[Qingdao]] (Tsingtao, a German territory between 1898 and 1914 and subsequently Japanese-occupied) , [[Yantai]] (known as Chefoo, a summer base for the US China squadron), and [[Weihai]] (formerly [[Weihaiwei]], a British leased territory between 1898 and 1930).<br /> <br /> [[Category:China]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=292399 2007-09-13T14:04:27Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|Aschlafly}}<br /> <br /> ==Maintain the neutrality of the article==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a &quot;billion dollar industry&quot;, neither of the linked &quot;references&quot; make any claims about the value of the &quot;abortion industry&quot;. 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 &quot;source&quot;: <br /> <br /> Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents. <br /> <br /> The second &quot;source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual. <br /> <br /> Brian<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ==&quot;This is Conservapedia&quot;==<br /> Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as &quot;conservatives&quot; ''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 &quot;pro-choice conservative&quot; is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> :prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.<br /> <br /> :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. <br /> <br /> [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> --[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;most&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't &quot;add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?&quot; <br /> <br /> :: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians? <br /> <br /> :: And if Protestant denominations don't &quot;add anything to the teachings of Jesus&quot; than why do Baptists say they have &quot;no sacraments,&quot; Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the &quot;Real Presence&quot; of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only &quot;spiritually&quot; present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::'''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:<br /> <br /> :::''&quot;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.&quot; Revelation 22:18-19''<br /> <br /> :::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. <br /> ::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called &quot;abortion&quot; 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:<br /> <br /> :::&quot;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.&quot; Exodus 21: 22-25<br /> <br /> :::'''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.<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ::: 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 &quot;abortivum&quot; to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means &quot;and the child went out&quot; 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. <br /> <br /> ::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is &quot;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.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;twisted.&quot; (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)<br /> <br /> I dont know how you translated &quot;miscarraige&quot; 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 &quot;birth&quot; and &quot;and the child came out&quot; 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 &quot;analysis&quot;. 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 &quot;pro-life&quot; stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST) <br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;unborn fetus.&quot; The term &quot;with child&quot; is used, not &quot;with fetus.&quot; In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's &quot;babe&quot; leaps in her womb, not her &quot;fetus.&quot; Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;At two weeks pregnancy, the &quot;fetus&quot; 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.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not &quot;fix&quot; 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 - &quot;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.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> ::: '''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)<br /> <br /> :::: '''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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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]]<br /> '''<br /> <br /> :The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:<br /> Abortion<br /> <br /> 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 ...<br /> <br /> *if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion <br /> <br /> : '''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.<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party <br /> <br /> : '''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.<br /> <br /> *if the page is to say that the &quot;pro-choice&quot; group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the &quot;pro-life&quot; 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. <br /> <br /> :'''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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> -Neurocat <br /> <br /> :'''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)<br /> <br /> 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]]<br /> <br /> : 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: &quot;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...&quot; (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]: &quot;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.&quot; (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 &quot;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&quot; The Council of Ancyra also said &quot;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&quot; (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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Additional Information==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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]]<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> == profitability of abortion ==<br /> <br /> It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:<br /> <br /> http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm<br /> <br /> or for ghoulish Western research practices:<br /> <br /> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html<br /> http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247<br /> <br /> How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.<br /> <br /> :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]]<br /> <br /> ==Should the article introduce and define the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice?&quot;==<br /> <br /> Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&amp;curid=3937&amp;diff=17574&amp;oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;spin&quot; 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 &quot;pro-choice&quot; and &quot;pro-murder&quot; or &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-non-adult-life,&quot; please).<br /> <br /> ::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the &quot;spin&quot; 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 &quot;pro-abortion&quot; and &quot;anti-abortion&quot; (where it's understood that &quot;abortion&quot; is short for &quot;the continuing availability of legalized abortion.) <br /> <br /> ::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not &quot;self-evident.&quot; A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what &quot;pro-choice&quot; means, or that a &quot;pro-lifer&quot; can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::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 &quot;culture of life&quot; cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.<br /> [[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*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 &quot;pro-lifers&quot; support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as &quot;pro-life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::Due diligence:<br /> <br /> ::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's &quot;Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.&quot;[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says &quot;antiabortion.&quot;[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under &quot;issues,&quot; 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 &quot;The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.&quot; Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says &quot;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.&quot;<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;pro-life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :'''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 &quot;pro-choice&quot;, and its passing references to &quot;pro-life&quot; near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> 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)<br /> :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]<br /> <br /> == Article weight ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Bible==<br /> the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment &quot;You shall not murder&quot;. 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Evidence That Demands A Verdict&quot; should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Seriously, please add this to the article ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;&quot;&gt;<br /> 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]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;includeonly&gt;[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]&lt;/includeonly&gt;<br /> <br /> *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<br /> <br /> ==Proposed new section==<br /> 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 &quot;rightness&quot; of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.<br /> <br /> Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ===Alternatives to abortion===<br /> Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> :*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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;Abstinence doesn't always work&quot; as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]<br /> <br /> :::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 &quot;abortion is murder&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ==danger of life and abortion needs discussion<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Add Category:Abortion==<br /> Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Definition of abortion==<br /> According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&amp;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)<br /> <br /> ==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Reply to the above ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Abortion and Breast Cancer==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;cause&quot; or &quot;causation&quot; is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state &quot;there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies.&quot; 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 &quot;Big Brother&quot; to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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 <br /> <br /> and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm <br /> <br /> 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...) <br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html<br /> <br /> Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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: <br /> http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;fit&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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 &quot;pro-abortion&quot; 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 &quot;Lancet&quot; and &quot;Harvard&quot;, 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, &quot;Melbye&quot; and &quot;Michels&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;methodologically sound,&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;expert&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> == Historical view of abortion ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : Your claim that the British taxpayer &quot;is happy to pay for this&quot; strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were &quot;happy to pay for this&quot; then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::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]]<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.<br /> --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP &quot;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.&quot; [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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Blocked? ==<br /> <br /> So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that &quot;liberal&quot; alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : What do the above comments have to do with whether something is &quot;free&quot;? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == death rate ==<br /> <br /> The first paragraph of the &quot;Other health effects&quot; section is <br /> :''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.''<br /> Apart from &quot;association&quot; where it presumably should say &quot;associated&quot;, 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? &quot;110% of women who had abortions die&quot; would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Requested edits ==<br /> <br /> * Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::*&lt;nowiki&gt;:&lt;/nowiki&gt;D There's your smile! --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Billion Dollar Industry ==<br /> <br /> There is a footnote for the &quot;abortion is now a billion dollar industry&quot; 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 &quot;billion&quot; &quot;dollar&quot; or &quot;industry&quot; 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)<br /> :What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Scientific/Medical background needed ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==<br /> <br /> '''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''<br /> <br /> *[[Abortion alternatives]]<br /> *[[Abortion procedures]]<br /> *[[Culture of life]]<br /> *[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]] <br /> *[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]] <br /> *[[National Right to Life Committee]]<br /> *[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]<br /> *[[Partial birth abortion]]<br /> *[[Right to life]]<br /> *[[Right to life books]]<br /> *[[Right to life movement]]<br /> *[[Saline abortion]]<br /> *[[Suction abortion]]<br /> *[[Sanctity of life]] <br /> *[[Silent scream]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> == American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==<br /> <br /> http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=<br /> <br /> You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - &quot;science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect&quot;? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are &quot;liberal biased.&quot; Facts don't matter to these people.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Listen up== <br /> <br /> 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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT) <br /> And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.<br /> <br /> :Was just thinking about the &quot;16 out of 17 statistically significant studies&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> =Bizarre fixation on abortion=<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Confused ==<br /> <br /> Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == But what about the benefits of abortion? ==<br /> <br /> This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:<br /> *Saving the mother's life<br /> *Protecting the mother's physical and mental health<br /> *Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==<br /> <br /> See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==<br /> <br /> I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer<br /> <br /> 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? ''' <br /> <br /> I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information. <br /> <br /> 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 <br /> <br /> I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.<br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> : 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).<br /> <br /> ::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?<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more &quot;presumptuous&quot; 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 &quot;pro-life&quot;. 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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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 &quot;there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand&quot; -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 &quot;volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone&quot; - 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 &quot;side&quot; as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is &quot;liberal&quot; v &quot;conservative&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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???<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:<br /> #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<br /> #There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> =Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion=<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Related news article:<br /> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm<br /> <br /> Study abstract:<br /> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814<br /> <br /> Full text of study:<br /> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814<br /> <br /> 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)?<br /> <br /> == Quick question ==<br /> <br /> What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Thanks :D --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::That says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot;. I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot; rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Actually, it says &quot;You are not to murder&quot;. 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 &quot;No murder&quot; applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot;. I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot; as well. Which version are you using? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between &quot;dont kill&quot; and &quot;dont murder&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> ===Round 2===<br /> 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''? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;potential life&quot; 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 &quot;life&quot;. 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 &quot;life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;first do no harm&quot; implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Consider to include in &quot;See also&quot; section==<br /> <br /> I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the &quot;see also&quot; section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Abortion in minnesota ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> :: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Health risks ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == China ==<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;intentionally damaging property&quot; and &quot;organising a crowd to disturb traffic&quot; after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.<br /> [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=292396 2007-09-13T14:00:42Z

<p>Luojie: /* China */</p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|Aschlafly}}<br /> <br /> ==Maintain the neutrality of the article==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a &quot;billion dollar industry&quot;, neither of the linked &quot;references&quot; make any claims about the value of the &quot;abortion industry&quot;. 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 &quot;source&quot;: <br /> <br /> Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents. <br /> <br /> The second &quot;source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual. <br /> <br /> Brian<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ==&quot;This is Conservapedia&quot;==<br /> Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as &quot;conservatives&quot; ''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 &quot;pro-choice conservative&quot; is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> :prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.<br /> <br /> :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. <br /> <br /> [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> --[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;most&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't &quot;add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?&quot; <br /> <br /> :: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians? <br /> <br /> :: And if Protestant denominations don't &quot;add anything to the teachings of Jesus&quot; than why do Baptists say they have &quot;no sacraments,&quot; Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the &quot;Real Presence&quot; of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only &quot;spiritually&quot; present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::'''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:<br /> <br /> :::''&quot;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.&quot; Revelation 22:18-19''<br /> <br /> :::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. <br /> ::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called &quot;abortion&quot; 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:<br /> <br /> :::&quot;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.&quot; Exodus 21: 22-25<br /> <br /> :::'''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.<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ::: 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 &quot;abortivum&quot; to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means &quot;and the child went out&quot; 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. <br /> <br /> ::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is &quot;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.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;twisted.&quot; (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)<br /> <br /> I dont know how you translated &quot;miscarraige&quot; 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 &quot;birth&quot; and &quot;and the child came out&quot; 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 &quot;analysis&quot;. 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 &quot;pro-life&quot; stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST) <br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;unborn fetus.&quot; The term &quot;with child&quot; is used, not &quot;with fetus.&quot; In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's &quot;babe&quot; leaps in her womb, not her &quot;fetus.&quot; Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;At two weeks pregnancy, the &quot;fetus&quot; 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.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not &quot;fix&quot; 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 - &quot;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.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> ::: '''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)<br /> <br /> :::: '''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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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]]<br /> '''<br /> <br /> :The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:<br /> Abortion<br /> <br /> 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 ...<br /> <br /> *if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion <br /> <br /> : '''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.<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party <br /> <br /> : '''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.<br /> <br /> *if the page is to say that the &quot;pro-choice&quot; group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the &quot;pro-life&quot; 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. <br /> <br /> :'''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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> -Neurocat <br /> <br /> :'''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)<br /> <br /> 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]]<br /> <br /> : 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: &quot;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...&quot; (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]: &quot;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.&quot; (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 &quot;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&quot; The Council of Ancyra also said &quot;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&quot; (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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Additional Information==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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]]<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> == profitability of abortion ==<br /> <br /> It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:<br /> <br /> http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm<br /> <br /> or for ghoulish Western research practices:<br /> <br /> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html<br /> http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247<br /> <br /> How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.<br /> <br /> :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]]<br /> <br /> ==Should the article introduce and define the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice?&quot;==<br /> <br /> Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&amp;curid=3937&amp;diff=17574&amp;oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;spin&quot; 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 &quot;pro-choice&quot; and &quot;pro-murder&quot; or &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-non-adult-life,&quot; please).<br /> <br /> ::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the &quot;spin&quot; 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 &quot;pro-abortion&quot; and &quot;anti-abortion&quot; (where it's understood that &quot;abortion&quot; is short for &quot;the continuing availability of legalized abortion.) <br /> <br /> ::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not &quot;self-evident.&quot; A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what &quot;pro-choice&quot; means, or that a &quot;pro-lifer&quot; can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::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 &quot;culture of life&quot; cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.<br /> [[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*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 &quot;pro-lifers&quot; support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as &quot;pro-life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::Due diligence:<br /> <br /> ::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's &quot;Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.&quot;[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says &quot;antiabortion.&quot;[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under &quot;issues,&quot; 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 &quot;The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.&quot; Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says &quot;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.&quot;<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;pro-life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :'''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 &quot;pro-choice&quot;, and its passing references to &quot;pro-life&quot; near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> 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)<br /> :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]<br /> <br /> == Article weight ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Bible==<br /> the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment &quot;You shall not murder&quot;. 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Evidence That Demands A Verdict&quot; should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Seriously, please add this to the article ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;&quot;&gt;<br /> 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]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;includeonly&gt;[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]&lt;/includeonly&gt;<br /> <br /> *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<br /> <br /> ==Proposed new section==<br /> 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 &quot;rightness&quot; of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.<br /> <br /> Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ===Alternatives to abortion===<br /> Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> :*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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;Abstinence doesn't always work&quot; as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]<br /> <br /> :::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 &quot;abortion is murder&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ==danger of life and abortion needs discussion<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Add Category:Abortion==<br /> Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Definition of abortion==<br /> According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&amp;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)<br /> <br /> ==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Reply to the above ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Abortion and Breast Cancer==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;cause&quot; or &quot;causation&quot; is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state &quot;there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies.&quot; 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 &quot;Big Brother&quot; to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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 <br /> <br /> and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm <br /> <br /> 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...) <br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html<br /> <br /> Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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: <br /> http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;fit&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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 &quot;pro-abortion&quot; 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 &quot;Lancet&quot; and &quot;Harvard&quot;, 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, &quot;Melbye&quot; and &quot;Michels&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;methodologically sound,&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;expert&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> == Historical view of abortion ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : Your claim that the British taxpayer &quot;is happy to pay for this&quot; strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were &quot;happy to pay for this&quot; then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::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]]<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.<br /> --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP &quot;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.&quot; [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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Blocked? ==<br /> <br /> So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that &quot;liberal&quot; alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : What do the above comments have to do with whether something is &quot;free&quot;? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == death rate ==<br /> <br /> The first paragraph of the &quot;Other health effects&quot; section is <br /> :''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.''<br /> Apart from &quot;association&quot; where it presumably should say &quot;associated&quot;, 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? &quot;110% of women who had abortions die&quot; would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Requested edits ==<br /> <br /> * Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::*&lt;nowiki&gt;:&lt;/nowiki&gt;D There's your smile! --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Billion Dollar Industry ==<br /> <br /> There is a footnote for the &quot;abortion is now a billion dollar industry&quot; 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 &quot;billion&quot; &quot;dollar&quot; or &quot;industry&quot; 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)<br /> :What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Scientific/Medical background needed ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==<br /> <br /> '''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''<br /> <br /> *[[Abortion alternatives]]<br /> *[[Abortion procedures]]<br /> *[[Culture of life]]<br /> *[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]] <br /> *[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]] <br /> *[[National Right to Life Committee]]<br /> *[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]<br /> *[[Partial birth abortion]]<br /> *[[Right to life]]<br /> *[[Right to life books]]<br /> *[[Right to life movement]]<br /> *[[Saline abortion]]<br /> *[[Suction abortion]]<br /> *[[Sanctity of life]] <br /> *[[Silent scream]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> == American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==<br /> <br /> http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=<br /> <br /> You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - &quot;science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect&quot;? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are &quot;liberal biased.&quot; Facts don't matter to these people.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Listen up== <br /> <br /> 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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT) <br /> And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.<br /> <br /> :Was just thinking about the &quot;16 out of 17 statistically significant studies&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> =Bizarre fixation on abortion=<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Confused ==<br /> <br /> Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == But what about the benefits of abortion? ==<br /> <br /> This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:<br /> *Saving the mother's life<br /> *Protecting the mother's physical and mental health<br /> *Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==<br /> <br /> See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==<br /> <br /> I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer<br /> <br /> 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? ''' <br /> <br /> I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information. <br /> <br /> 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 <br /> <br /> I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.<br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> : 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).<br /> <br /> ::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?<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more &quot;presumptuous&quot; 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 &quot;pro-life&quot;. 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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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 &quot;there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand&quot; -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 &quot;volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone&quot; - 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 &quot;side&quot; as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is &quot;liberal&quot; v &quot;conservative&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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???<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:<br /> #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<br /> #There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> =Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion=<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Related news article:<br /> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm<br /> <br /> Study abstract:<br /> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814<br /> <br /> Full text of study:<br /> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814<br /> <br /> 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)?<br /> <br /> == Quick question ==<br /> <br /> What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Thanks :D --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::That says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot;. I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot; rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Actually, it says &quot;You are not to murder&quot;. 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 &quot;No murder&quot; applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot;. I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot; as well. Which version are you using? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between &quot;dont kill&quot; and &quot;dont murder&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> ===Round 2===<br /> 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''? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;potential life&quot; 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 &quot;life&quot;. 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 &quot;life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;first do no harm&quot; implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Consider to include in &quot;See also&quot; section==<br /> <br /> I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the &quot;see also&quot; section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Abortion in minnesota ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> :: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Health risks ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == China ==<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;intentionally damaging property&quot; and &quot;organising a crowd to disturb traffic&quot; after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=292395 2007-09-13T13:59:24Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|Aschlafly}}<br /> <br /> ==Maintain the neutrality of the article==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a &quot;billion dollar industry&quot;, neither of the linked &quot;references&quot; make any claims about the value of the &quot;abortion industry&quot;. 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 &quot;source&quot;: <br /> <br /> Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents. <br /> <br /> The second &quot;source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual. <br /> <br /> Brian<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ==&quot;This is Conservapedia&quot;==<br /> Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as &quot;conservatives&quot; ''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 &quot;pro-choice conservative&quot; is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> :prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.<br /> <br /> :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. <br /> <br /> [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> --[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;most&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't &quot;add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?&quot; <br /> <br /> :: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians? <br /> <br /> :: And if Protestant denominations don't &quot;add anything to the teachings of Jesus&quot; than why do Baptists say they have &quot;no sacraments,&quot; Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the &quot;Real Presence&quot; of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only &quot;spiritually&quot; present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::'''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:<br /> <br /> :::''&quot;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.&quot; Revelation 22:18-19''<br /> <br /> :::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. <br /> ::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called &quot;abortion&quot; 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:<br /> <br /> :::&quot;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.&quot; Exodus 21: 22-25<br /> <br /> :::'''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.<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ::: 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 &quot;abortivum&quot; to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means &quot;and the child went out&quot; 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. <br /> <br /> ::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is &quot;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.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;twisted.&quot; (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)<br /> <br /> I dont know how you translated &quot;miscarraige&quot; 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 &quot;birth&quot; and &quot;and the child came out&quot; 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 &quot;analysis&quot;. 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 &quot;pro-life&quot; stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST) <br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;unborn fetus.&quot; The term &quot;with child&quot; is used, not &quot;with fetus.&quot; In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's &quot;babe&quot; leaps in her womb, not her &quot;fetus.&quot; Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;At two weeks pregnancy, the &quot;fetus&quot; 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.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not &quot;fix&quot; 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 - &quot;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.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> ::: '''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)<br /> <br /> :::: '''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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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]]<br /> '''<br /> <br /> :The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:<br /> Abortion<br /> <br /> 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 ...<br /> <br /> *if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion <br /> <br /> : '''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.<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party <br /> <br /> : '''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.<br /> <br /> *if the page is to say that the &quot;pro-choice&quot; group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the &quot;pro-life&quot; 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. <br /> <br /> :'''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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> -Neurocat <br /> <br /> :'''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)<br /> <br /> 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]]<br /> <br /> : 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: &quot;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...&quot; (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]: &quot;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.&quot; (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 &quot;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&quot; The Council of Ancyra also said &quot;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&quot; (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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Additional Information==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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]]<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> == profitability of abortion ==<br /> <br /> It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:<br /> <br /> http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm<br /> <br /> or for ghoulish Western research practices:<br /> <br /> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html<br /> http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247<br /> <br /> How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.<br /> <br /> :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]]<br /> <br /> ==Should the article introduce and define the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice?&quot;==<br /> <br /> Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&amp;curid=3937&amp;diff=17574&amp;oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;spin&quot; 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 &quot;pro-choice&quot; and &quot;pro-murder&quot; or &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-non-adult-life,&quot; please).<br /> <br /> ::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the &quot;spin&quot; 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 &quot;pro-abortion&quot; and &quot;anti-abortion&quot; (where it's understood that &quot;abortion&quot; is short for &quot;the continuing availability of legalized abortion.) <br /> <br /> ::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not &quot;self-evident.&quot; A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what &quot;pro-choice&quot; means, or that a &quot;pro-lifer&quot; can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::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 &quot;culture of life&quot; cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.<br /> [[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*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 &quot;pro-lifers&quot; support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as &quot;pro-life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::Due diligence:<br /> <br /> ::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's &quot;Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.&quot;[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says &quot;antiabortion.&quot;[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under &quot;issues,&quot; 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 &quot;The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.&quot; Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says &quot;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.&quot;<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;pro-life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :'''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 &quot;pro-choice&quot;, and its passing references to &quot;pro-life&quot; near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> 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)<br /> :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]<br /> <br /> == Article weight ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Bible==<br /> the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment &quot;You shall not murder&quot;. 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Evidence That Demands A Verdict&quot; should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Seriously, please add this to the article ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;&quot;&gt;<br /> 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]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;includeonly&gt;[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]&lt;/includeonly&gt;<br /> <br /> *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<br /> <br /> ==Proposed new section==<br /> 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 &quot;rightness&quot; of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.<br /> <br /> Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ===Alternatives to abortion===<br /> Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> :*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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;Abstinence doesn't always work&quot; as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]<br /> <br /> :::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 &quot;abortion is murder&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ==danger of life and abortion needs discussion<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Add Category:Abortion==<br /> Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Definition of abortion==<br /> According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&amp;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)<br /> <br /> ==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Reply to the above ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Abortion and Breast Cancer==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;cause&quot; or &quot;causation&quot; is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state &quot;there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies.&quot; 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 &quot;Big Brother&quot; to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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 <br /> <br /> and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm <br /> <br /> 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...) <br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html<br /> <br /> Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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: <br /> http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;fit&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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 &quot;pro-abortion&quot; 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 &quot;Lancet&quot; and &quot;Harvard&quot;, 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, &quot;Melbye&quot; and &quot;Michels&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;methodologically sound,&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;expert&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> == Historical view of abortion ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : Your claim that the British taxpayer &quot;is happy to pay for this&quot; strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were &quot;happy to pay for this&quot; then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::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]]<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.<br /> --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP &quot;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.&quot; [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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Blocked? ==<br /> <br /> So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that &quot;liberal&quot; alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : What do the above comments have to do with whether something is &quot;free&quot;? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == death rate ==<br /> <br /> The first paragraph of the &quot;Other health effects&quot; section is <br /> :''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.''<br /> Apart from &quot;association&quot; where it presumably should say &quot;associated&quot;, 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? &quot;110% of women who had abortions die&quot; would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Requested edits ==<br /> <br /> * Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::*&lt;nowiki&gt;:&lt;/nowiki&gt;D There's your smile! --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Billion Dollar Industry ==<br /> <br /> There is a footnote for the &quot;abortion is now a billion dollar industry&quot; 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 &quot;billion&quot; &quot;dollar&quot; or &quot;industry&quot; 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)<br /> :What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Scientific/Medical background needed ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==<br /> <br /> '''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''<br /> <br /> *[[Abortion alternatives]]<br /> *[[Abortion procedures]]<br /> *[[Culture of life]]<br /> *[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]] <br /> *[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]] <br /> *[[National Right to Life Committee]]<br /> *[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]<br /> *[[Partial birth abortion]]<br /> *[[Right to life]]<br /> *[[Right to life books]]<br /> *[[Right to life movement]]<br /> *[[Saline abortion]]<br /> *[[Suction abortion]]<br /> *[[Sanctity of life]] <br /> *[[Silent scream]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> == American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==<br /> <br /> http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=<br /> <br /> You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - &quot;science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect&quot;? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are &quot;liberal biased.&quot; Facts don't matter to these people.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Listen up== <br /> <br /> 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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT) <br /> And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.<br /> <br /> :Was just thinking about the &quot;16 out of 17 statistically significant studies&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> =Bizarre fixation on abortion=<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Confused ==<br /> <br /> Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == But what about the benefits of abortion? ==<br /> <br /> This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:<br /> *Saving the mother's life<br /> *Protecting the mother's physical and mental health<br /> *Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==<br /> <br /> See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==<br /> <br /> I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer<br /> <br /> 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? ''' <br /> <br /> I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information. <br /> <br /> 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 <br /> <br /> I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.<br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> : 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).<br /> <br /> ::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?<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more &quot;presumptuous&quot; 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 &quot;pro-life&quot;. 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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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 &quot;there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand&quot; -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 &quot;volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone&quot; - 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 &quot;side&quot; as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is &quot;liberal&quot; v &quot;conservative&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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???<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:<br /> #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<br /> #There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> =Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion=<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Related news article:<br /> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm<br /> <br /> Study abstract:<br /> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814<br /> <br /> Full text of study:<br /> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814<br /> <br /> 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)?<br /> <br /> == Quick question ==<br /> <br /> What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Thanks :D --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::That says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot;. I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot; rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Actually, it says &quot;You are not to murder&quot;. 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 &quot;No murder&quot; applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot;. I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot; as well. Which version are you using? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between &quot;dont kill&quot; and &quot;dont murder&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> ===Round 2===<br /> 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''? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;potential life&quot; 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 &quot;life&quot;. 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 &quot;life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;first do no harm&quot; implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Consider to include in &quot;See also&quot; section==<br /> <br /> I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the &quot;see also&quot; section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Abortion in minnesota ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> :: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Health risks ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == China ==<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;damaging property and organising a mob to disturb traffic&quot; after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=292392 2007-09-13T13:25:43Z

<p>Luojie: /* Bible */</p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|Aschlafly}}<br /> <br /> ==Maintain the neutrality of the article==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a &quot;billion dollar industry&quot;, neither of the linked &quot;references&quot; make any claims about the value of the &quot;abortion industry&quot;. 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 &quot;source&quot;: <br /> <br /> Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents. <br /> <br /> The second &quot;source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual. <br /> <br /> Brian<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ==&quot;This is Conservapedia&quot;==<br /> Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as &quot;conservatives&quot; ''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 &quot;pro-choice conservative&quot; is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> :prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.<br /> <br /> :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. <br /> <br /> [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> --[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;most&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't &quot;add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?&quot; <br /> <br /> :: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians? <br /> <br /> :: And if Protestant denominations don't &quot;add anything to the teachings of Jesus&quot; than why do Baptists say they have &quot;no sacraments,&quot; Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the &quot;Real Presence&quot; of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only &quot;spiritually&quot; present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::'''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:<br /> <br /> :::''&quot;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.&quot; Revelation 22:18-19''<br /> <br /> :::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. <br /> ::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called &quot;abortion&quot; 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:<br /> <br /> :::&quot;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.&quot; Exodus 21: 22-25<br /> <br /> :::'''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.<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ::: 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 &quot;abortivum&quot; to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means &quot;and the child went out&quot; 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. <br /> <br /> ::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is &quot;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.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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 &quot;twisted.&quot; (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)<br /> <br /> I dont know how you translated &quot;miscarraige&quot; 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 &quot;birth&quot; and &quot;and the child came out&quot; 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 &quot;analysis&quot;. 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 &quot;pro-life&quot; stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST) <br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;unborn fetus.&quot; The term &quot;with child&quot; is used, not &quot;with fetus.&quot; In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's &quot;babe&quot; leaps in her womb, not her &quot;fetus.&quot; Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;At two weeks pregnancy, the &quot;fetus&quot; 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.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not &quot;fix&quot; 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 - &quot;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.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> ::: '''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)<br /> <br /> :::: '''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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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]]<br /> '''<br /> <br /> :The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:<br /> Abortion<br /> <br /> 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 ...<br /> <br /> *if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion <br /> <br /> : '''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.<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party <br /> <br /> : '''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.<br /> <br /> *if the page is to say that the &quot;pro-choice&quot; group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the &quot;pro-life&quot; 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. <br /> <br /> :'''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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> -Neurocat <br /> <br /> :'''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)<br /> <br /> 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]]<br /> <br /> : 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: &quot;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...&quot; (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]: &quot;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.&quot; (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 &quot;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&quot; The Council of Ancyra also said &quot;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&quot; (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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Additional Information==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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]]<br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> == profitability of abortion ==<br /> <br /> It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:<br /> <br /> http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm<br /> <br /> or for ghoulish Western research practices:<br /> <br /> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html<br /> http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247<br /> <br /> How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.<br /> <br /> :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]]<br /> <br /> ==Should the article introduce and define the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice?&quot;==<br /> <br /> Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&amp;curid=3937&amp;diff=17574&amp;oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;spin&quot; 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 &quot;pro-choice&quot; and &quot;pro-murder&quot; or &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-non-adult-life,&quot; please).<br /> <br /> ::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the &quot;spin&quot; 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 &quot;pro-abortion&quot; and &quot;anti-abortion&quot; (where it's understood that &quot;abortion&quot; is short for &quot;the continuing availability of legalized abortion.) <br /> <br /> ::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not &quot;self-evident.&quot; A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what &quot;pro-choice&quot; means, or that a &quot;pro-lifer&quot; can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::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 &quot;culture of life&quot; cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.<br /> [[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*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 &quot;pro-lifers&quot; support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as &quot;pro-life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::Due diligence:<br /> <br /> ::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's &quot;Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.&quot;[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says &quot;antiabortion.&quot;[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under &quot;issues,&quot; 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 &quot;The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.&quot; Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says &quot;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.&quot;<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;pro-life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :'''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 &quot;pro-choice&quot;, and its passing references to &quot;pro-life&quot; near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> 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)<br /> :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]<br /> <br /> == Article weight ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Bible==<br /> the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment &quot;You shall not murder&quot;. 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;Evidence That Demands A Verdict&quot; should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Seriously, please add this to the article ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;&quot;&gt;<br /> 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]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;includeonly&gt;[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]&lt;/includeonly&gt;<br /> <br /> *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<br /> <br /> ==Proposed new section==<br /> 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 &quot;rightness&quot; of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.<br /> <br /> Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ===Alternatives to abortion===<br /> Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> :*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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;Abstinence doesn't always work&quot; as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]<br /> <br /> :::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 &quot;abortion is murder&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ==danger of life and abortion needs discussion<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Add Category:Abortion==<br /> Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Definition of abortion==<br /> According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&amp;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)<br /> <br /> ==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Reply to the above ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Abortion and Breast Cancer==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;cause&quot; or &quot;causation&quot; is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state &quot;there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies.&quot; 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 &quot;Big Brother&quot; to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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 <br /> <br /> and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm <br /> <br /> 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...) <br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html<br /> <br /> Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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: <br /> http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;fit&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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 &quot;pro-abortion&quot; 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 &quot;Lancet&quot; and &quot;Harvard&quot;, 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, &quot;Melbye&quot; and &quot;Michels&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;methodologically sound,&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> ::::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 &quot;expert&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> == Historical view of abortion ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : Your claim that the British taxpayer &quot;is happy to pay for this&quot; strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were &quot;happy to pay for this&quot; then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::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]]<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.<br /> --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP &quot;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.&quot; [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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> == Blocked? ==<br /> <br /> So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that &quot;liberal&quot; alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : What do the above comments have to do with whether something is &quot;free&quot;? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == death rate ==<br /> <br /> The first paragraph of the &quot;Other health effects&quot; section is <br /> :''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.''<br /> Apart from &quot;association&quot; where it presumably should say &quot;associated&quot;, 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? &quot;110% of women who had abortions die&quot; would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Requested edits ==<br /> <br /> * Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::*&lt;nowiki&gt;:&lt;/nowiki&gt;D There's your smile! --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Billion Dollar Industry ==<br /> <br /> There is a footnote for the &quot;abortion is now a billion dollar industry&quot; 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 &quot;billion&quot; &quot;dollar&quot; or &quot;industry&quot; 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)<br /> :What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Scientific/Medical background needed ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==<br /> <br /> '''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''<br /> <br /> *[[Abortion alternatives]]<br /> *[[Abortion procedures]]<br /> *[[Culture of life]]<br /> *[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]] <br /> *[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]] <br /> *[[National Right to Life Committee]]<br /> *[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]<br /> *[[Partial birth abortion]]<br /> *[[Right to life]]<br /> *[[Right to life books]]<br /> *[[Right to life movement]]<br /> *[[Saline abortion]]<br /> *[[Suction abortion]]<br /> *[[Sanctity of life]] <br /> *[[Silent scream]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> == American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==<br /> <br /> http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=<br /> <br /> You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - &quot;science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect&quot;? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are &quot;liberal biased.&quot; Facts don't matter to these people.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Listen up== <br /> <br /> 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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT) <br /> And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.<br /> <br /> :Was just thinking about the &quot;16 out of 17 statistically significant studies&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> =Bizarre fixation on abortion=<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Confused ==<br /> <br /> Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == But what about the benefits of abortion? ==<br /> <br /> This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:<br /> *Saving the mother's life<br /> *Protecting the mother's physical and mental health<br /> *Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==<br /> <br /> See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==<br /> <br /> I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer<br /> <br /> 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? ''' <br /> <br /> I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information. <br /> <br /> 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 <br /> <br /> I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.<br /> <br /> [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative<br /> <br /> : 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).<br /> <br /> ::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?<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more &quot;presumptuous&quot; 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 &quot;pro-life&quot;. 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)<br /> <br /> :::: 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 &quot;there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand&quot; -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 &quot;volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone&quot; - 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 &quot;side&quot; as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is &quot;liberal&quot; v &quot;conservative&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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???<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> ::: 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)<br /> <br /> I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:<br /> #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<br /> #There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> =Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion=<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Related news article:<br /> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm<br /> <br /> Study abstract:<br /> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814<br /> <br /> Full text of study:<br /> http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814<br /> <br /> 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)?<br /> <br /> == Quick question ==<br /> <br /> What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Thanks :D --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::That says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot;. I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot; rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Actually, it says &quot;You are not to murder&quot;. 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 &quot;No murder&quot; applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot;. I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot; as well. Which version are you using? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between &quot;dont kill&quot; and &quot;dont murder&quot;, 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)<br /> <br /> ===Round 2===<br /> 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''? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;potential life&quot; 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 &quot;life&quot;. 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 &quot;life&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : 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)<br /> <br /> :: 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 &quot;first do no harm&quot; implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Consider to include in &quot;See also&quot; section==<br /> <br /> I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the &quot;see also&quot; section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Abortion in minnesota ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> :: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Health risks ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Roman_alphabet&diff=284791 2007-09-02T12:53:19Z

<p>Luojie: Redirecting to Alphabet</p> <hr /> <div>#REDIRECT [[Alphabet]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Romanising&diff=284790 2007-09-02T12:51:06Z

<p>Luojie: Redirecting to Romanisation</p> <hr /> <div>#REDIRECT [[Romanisation]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Romanisation&diff=284789 2007-09-02T12:50:32Z

<p>Luojie: New Article</p> <hr /> <div>'''Romanisation''', also spelled '''Romanization''', is the rendering of words from languages which do not use the [[Roman alphabet]] into Roman or Latin letters so that speakers of languages using the Roman alphabet can have some idea of how the words are pronounced. Romanisation is most commonly used to render [[proper nouns]] intelligible to speakers of these languages and to assist learners of the non-Roman scripted language. Some languages, such as [[Mandarin Chinese]], have an internationally recognised [[standard]] for romanising their words. In this case, the standard romanisation is the [[pinyin]] system. Usually these standards have been mandated by the government of the country where that language is spoken. Other languages, such as [[Cantonese]], may not have a standard romanisation system. This is usually because the language is not a [[national language]], or because the romanisation system used by the government is extremely inconsistent, as is the case in [[Hong Kong]] with Cantonese. When this happens, a variety of romanisation systems may developed by various academics. With Cantonese, there are the Hong Kong government system, the Yale system and a system based on pinyin developed in [[Guangdong Province]].</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pinyin&diff=284784 2007-09-02T12:38:25Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Pinyin''', also known as Hanyu Pinyin, is the internationally recognised [[standard]] for [[romanising]] [[Mandarin Chinese]]. It was approved by the Chinese government in 1958 and adopted in 1979 as the basis for romanising all Chinese names and also for the teaching of Mandarin. It is used in all schools as a basic [[literacy]] tool upon which the learning of [[Chinese characters]] is based. It is also used by most universities outside [[China]], other than those in [[Taiwan]] as a basis for teaching Mandarin as a foreign language. It is also noteworthy that Taiwan has developed a variant of Hanyu Pinyin, known as [[Tongyong Pinyin]] to replace the [[Wade-Giles]] [[romanisation]] system that was previously used internationally, but is now only used in Taiwan.<br /> <br /> == How Pinyin Works ==<br /> <br /> The Roman letters used in Pinyin do not necessarily have the same pronunciation value as those of English or any other language, especially q and x. Here is a table of the Pinyin letters with a rough English equivalent. The Pinyin letters are divided into ''initials'', which consist of consonants plus w and y, and ''finals'', which always start with a vowel, and which may exist as syllables on their own, except that those syllables beginning with i, u and ü always begin with y, w and y respectively.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Pinyin Letter or Combination of Letters<br /> ! English Near Equivalent<br /> |-<br /> | b<br /> | b<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | p<br /> | p<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | m<br /> | m<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | f<br /> | f<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | d<br /> | d<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | t<br /> | t<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | n<br /> | n<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | l<br /> | l<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | j<br /> | j with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | q<br /> | ch with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | x<br /> | Like &quot;sh&quot; with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | zh<br /> | Like &quot;j&quot; with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ch<br /> | ch with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | sh<br /> | sh with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | r<br /> | Not like the English &quot;r&quot;, but a sound made with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | z<br /> | dz<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | c<br /> | ts (always at the beginning of a word, unlike in English. In fact German &quot;c&quot; has the same sound before &quot;e&quot; and &quot;i&quot;)<br /> |-<br /> | s<br /> | s<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | a<br /> | a as in &quot;f'''a'''ther&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | o<br /> | o as in &quot;J'''o'''hn&quot; pronounced the British, not the American way<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | e<br /> | er without the &quot;r&quot; on the end (again, the way British people pronounce it)<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | i<br /> | ee<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | u<br /> | oo, but with the lips more closely rounded, more like the German &quot;u&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ü<br /> | The French &quot;u&quot; or the German &quot;ü&quot;. Not found in English. &quot;Ü&quot; is only written this way after &quot;l&quot; and &quot;n&quot;. When it occurs after j, q, x and y, it is always written as &quot;u&quot; without the umlauts, as the other &quot;u&quot; never occurs after these letters<br /> |-<br /> | y<br /> | y as in &quot;'''Y'''es&quot;: replaces &quot;i&quot; and &quot;ü&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;i&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;yi&quot; or &quot;yu&quot;.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | w<br /> | w Replaces &quot;u&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;u&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;wu&quot;. <br /> |-<br /> | ao<br /> | ao, as in &quot;Mac'''ao'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | an<br /> | As in &quot;'''Ann'''&quot; spoken by people from Northern England<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ang<br /> | More like &quot;ahng&quot;, never like the &quot;ang&quot; in &quot;angry&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ei<br /> | Like &quot;ay&quot; in &quot;d'''ay'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | en<br /> | Like &quot;'''an'''&quot; when it is unstressed, also similar to &quot;'''earn'''&quot; when said by British people (without the &quot;r&quot; being pronounced, but not drawn out.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | eng<br /> | &quot;erng&quot;; similar, but not the same as the &quot;ung&quot; in &quot;bung&quot; when spoken by American speakers of English<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ie<br /> | The same as '''Yeah'''. Written &quot;ye&quot; on its own.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | in / yin<br /> | As in &quot;'''in'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | iong / yong<br /> | yoong; like &quot;'''young'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ong<br /> | oong; like &quot;b'''ung'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England, never like the &quot;ong&quot; in &quot;song&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ou<br /> | Like the &quot;o&quot; in &quot;g'''o'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | un <br /> | Like &quot;'''un'''der&quot; spoken by a person from the north of England. On its own, this syllable is written as &quot;'''wen'''&quot; and pronounced accordingly<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | üe<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; sound and &quot;e&quot; as in &quot;h'''e'''n&quot;. Not found in English. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yue&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ün<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; soung and n. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yun&quot;<br /> <br /> |} <br /> <br /> In addition to the pinyin letters, there are also four tone marks to indicate which of the four tones is to be used. For example, the syllable &quot;ma&quot; may be written &quot;mā&quot;, &quot;má&quot;, &quot;mǎ&quot; or &quot;mà&quot;<br /> <br /> [[Chinese characters]] are all monosyllabic and may exist on their own as individual words or be combined together to make new ones. This is reflected in Pinyin, for example the character &quot;车&quot; (chē) on its own means &quot;vehicle&quot;. However, it is combined with another character to make &quot;火车&quot; (huǒchē), which is &quot;train&quot;. In this instance &quot;huǒchē&quot; is written as one word and not two. Pinyin words are also [[capitalise]]d in the European fashion if the words refered to are [[proper nouns]]. [[Chinese names]] in pinyin treat the [[surname]] and [[given name]] as two words, so the name of China's current [[president]] is written as [[Hu Jintao]] (Hu is the surname) and not Hu Jin Tao.<br /> <br /> [[category:China]]<br /> [[category:linguistics]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pinyin&diff=284783 2007-09-02T12:37:43Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Pinyin''', also known as Hanyu Pinyin, is the internationally recognised [[standard]] for [[romanising]] [[Mandarin Chinese]]. It was approved by the Chinese government in 1958 and adopted in 1979 as the basis for romanising all Chinese names and also for the teaching of Mandarin. It is used in all schools as a basic [[literacy]] tool upon which the learning of [[Chinese characters]] is based. It is also used by most universities outside [[China]], other than those in [[Taiwan]] as a basis for teaching Mandarin as a foreign language. It is also noteworthy that Taiwan has developed a variant of Hanyu Pinyin, known as [[Tongyong Pinyin]] to replace the [[Wade-Giles]] romanisation system that was previously used internationally, but is now only used in Taiwan.<br /> <br /> == How Pinyin Works ==<br /> <br /> The Roman letters used in Pinyin do not necessarily have the same pronunciation value as those of English or any other language, especially q and x. Here is a table of the Pinyin letters with a rough English equivalent. The Pinyin letters are divided into ''initials'', which consist of consonants plus w and y, and ''finals'', which always start with a vowel, and which may exist as syllables on their own, except that those syllables beginning with i, u and ü always begin with y, w and y respectively.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Pinyin Letter or Combination of Letters<br /> ! English Near Equivalent<br /> |-<br /> | b<br /> | b<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | p<br /> | p<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | m<br /> | m<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | f<br /> | f<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | d<br /> | d<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | t<br /> | t<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | n<br /> | n<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | l<br /> | l<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | j<br /> | j with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | q<br /> | ch with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | x<br /> | Like &quot;sh&quot; with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | zh<br /> | Like &quot;j&quot; with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ch<br /> | ch with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | sh<br /> | sh with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | r<br /> | Not like the English &quot;r&quot;, but a sound made with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | z<br /> | dz<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | c<br /> | ts (always at the beginning of a word, unlike in English. In fact German &quot;c&quot; has the same sound before &quot;e&quot; and &quot;i&quot;)<br /> |-<br /> | s<br /> | s<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | a<br /> | a as in &quot;f'''a'''ther&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | o<br /> | o as in &quot;J'''o'''hn&quot; pronounced the British, not the American way<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | e<br /> | er without the &quot;r&quot; on the end (again, the way British people pronounce it)<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | i<br /> | ee<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | u<br /> | oo, but with the lips more closely rounded, more like the German &quot;u&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ü<br /> | The French &quot;u&quot; or the German &quot;ü&quot;. Not found in English. &quot;Ü&quot; is only written this way after &quot;l&quot; and &quot;n&quot;. When it occurs after j, q, x and y, it is always written as &quot;u&quot; without the umlauts, as the other &quot;u&quot; never occurs after these letters<br /> |-<br /> | y<br /> | y as in &quot;'''Y'''es&quot;: replaces &quot;i&quot; and &quot;ü&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;i&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;yi&quot; or &quot;yu&quot;.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | w<br /> | w Replaces &quot;u&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;u&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;wu&quot;. <br /> |-<br /> | ao<br /> | ao, as in &quot;Mac'''ao'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | an<br /> | As in &quot;'''Ann'''&quot; spoken by people from Northern England<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ang<br /> | More like &quot;ahng&quot;, never like the &quot;ang&quot; in &quot;angry&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ei<br /> | Like &quot;ay&quot; in &quot;d'''ay'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | en<br /> | Like &quot;'''an'''&quot; when it is unstressed, also similar to &quot;'''earn'''&quot; when said by British people (without the &quot;r&quot; being pronounced, but not drawn out.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | eng<br /> | &quot;erng&quot;; similar, but not the same as the &quot;ung&quot; in &quot;bung&quot; when spoken by American speakers of English<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ie<br /> | The same as '''Yeah'''. Written &quot;ye&quot; on its own.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | in / yin<br /> | As in &quot;'''in'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | iong / yong<br /> | yoong; like &quot;'''young'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ong<br /> | oong; like &quot;b'''ung'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England, never like the &quot;ong&quot; in &quot;song&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ou<br /> | Like the &quot;o&quot; in &quot;g'''o'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | un <br /> | Like &quot;'''un'''der&quot; spoken by a person from the north of England. On its own, this syllable is written as &quot;'''wen'''&quot; and pronounced accordingly<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | üe<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; sound and &quot;e&quot; as in &quot;h'''e'''n&quot;. Not found in English. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yue&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ün<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; soung and n. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yun&quot;<br /> <br /> |} <br /> <br /> In addition to the pinyin letters, there are also four tone marks to indicate which of the four tones is to be used. For example, the syllable &quot;ma&quot; may be written &quot;mā&quot;, &quot;má&quot;, &quot;mǎ&quot; or &quot;mà&quot;<br /> <br /> [[Chinese characters]] are all monosyllabic and may exist on their own as individual words or be combined together to make new ones. This is reflected in Pinyin, for example the character &quot;车&quot; (chē) on its own means &quot;vehicle&quot;. However, it is combined with another character to make &quot;火车&quot; (huǒchē), which is &quot;train&quot;. In this instance &quot;huǒchē&quot; is written as one word and not two. Pinyin words are also [[capitalise]]d in the European fashion if the words refered to are [[proper nouns]]. [[Chinese names]] in pinyin treat the [[surname]] and [[given name]] as two words, so the name of China's current [[president]] is written as [[Hu Jintao]] (Hu is the surname) and not Hu Jin Tao.<br /> <br /> [[category:China]]<br /> [[category:linguistics]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Malaysia&diff=284050 2007-09-01T13:18:15Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>{{stub}}<br /> <br /> '''Malaysia''' is a predominantly Muslim country in south-east [[Asia]]. Its capital is [[Kuala Lumpur]], officially abbreviated to ''KL''. Malaysia is a [[federation]] of thirteen [[state]]s, nine of which have hereditary [[sultans]] instead of [[governor]]s. One of these sultans is elected every five years to be the country's [[head of state]], known as the [[Yang di-Pertuan Agong]], who is usually referred to in English as the King of Malaysia. However, Malaysia is ruled as a [[federal]] [[parliamentary democracy]], the head of which is the [[prime minister]]. The country currently experiencing rapid economic growth.<br /> <br /> ==External link==<br /> *[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6703155.stm Malaysia rejects Christian appeal], BBC News, 30 May 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Asian Countries]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Malaysia&diff=284048 2007-09-01T13:17:47Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>{{stub}}<br /> <br /> '''Malaysia''' is a predominantly Muslim country in south-east [[Asia]]. Its capital is [[Kuala Lumpur]], officially abbreviated to ''KL''. Malaysia is a [[federation]] of thirteen [[state]]s, nine of which have hereditary [[sultans]] instead of [[governor]]s. One of these sultans is elected every five years to be the country's [[head of state]], known as the [[Yang di-Pertuan Agong]], who is usually referred to in English as the King of Malaysia. However, Malaysia is ruled as a [[federal]] [[parliamentary democracy]], the haed of which is the [[prime minister]]. The country currently experiencing rapid economic growth.<br /> <br /> ==External link==<br /> *[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6703155.stm Malaysia rejects Christian appeal], BBC News, 30 May 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Asian Countries]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Malaysia&diff=284047 2007-09-01T13:17:15Z

<p>Luojie: additional information</p> <hr /> <div>{{stub}}<br /> <br /> '''Malaysia''' is a predominantly Muslim country in south-east [[Asia]]. Its capital is [[Kuala Lumpur]], officially abbreviated to ''KL''. Malaysia is a [[federation]] of thirteen [[states]], nine of which have hereditary [[sultans]] instead of [[governor]]s. One of these sultans is elected every five years to be the country's [[head of state]], known as the [[Yang di-Pertuan Agong]], who is usually referred to in English as the King of Malaysia. However, Malaysia is ruled as a [[federal]] [[parliamentary democracy]], the haed of which is the [[prime minister]]. The country currently experiencing rapid economic growth.<br /> <br /> ==External link==<br /> *[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6703155.stm Malaysia rejects Christian appeal], BBC News, 30 May 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Asian Countries]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pinyin&diff=284044 2007-09-01T13:08:26Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Pinyin''', also known as Hanyu Pinyin, is the internationally recognised [[standard]] for [[romanising]] [[Mandarin Chinese]]. It was approved by the Chinese government in 1958 and adopted in 1979 as the basis for romanising all Chinese names and also for the teaching of Mandarin. It is used in all schools as a basic [[literacy]] tool upon which the learning of [[Chinese characters]] is based. It is also used by most universities outside [[China]], other than those in [[Taiwan]] as a basis for teaching Mandarin as a foreign language. It is also noteworthy that Taiwan has developed a variant of Hanyu Pinyin, known as [[Tongyong Pinyin]] to replace the now almost defunct [[Wade-Giles]] romanisation system that was previously used.<br /> <br /> == How Pinyin Works ==<br /> <br /> The Roman letters used in Pinyin do not necessarily have the same pronunciation value as those of English or any other language, especially q and x. Here is a table of the Pinyin letters with a rough English equivalent. The Pinyin letters are divided into ''initials'', which consist of consonants plus w and y, and ''finals'', which always start with a vowel, and which may exist as syllables on their own, except that those syllables beginning with i, u and ü always begin with y, w and y respectively.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Pinyin Letter or Combination of Letters<br /> ! English Near Equivalent<br /> |-<br /> | b<br /> | b<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | p<br /> | p<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | m<br /> | m<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | f<br /> | f<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | d<br /> | d<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | t<br /> | t<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | n<br /> | n<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | l<br /> | l<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | j<br /> | j with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | q<br /> | ch with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | x<br /> | Like &quot;sh&quot; with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | zh<br /> | Like &quot;j&quot; with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ch<br /> | ch with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | sh<br /> | sh with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | r<br /> | Not like the English &quot;r&quot;, but a sound made with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | z<br /> | dz<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | c<br /> | ts (always at the beginning of a word, unlike in English. In fact German &quot;c&quot; has the same sound before &quot;e&quot; and &quot;i&quot;)<br /> |-<br /> | s<br /> | s<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | a<br /> | a as in &quot;f'''a'''ther&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | o<br /> | o as in &quot;J'''o'''hn&quot; pronounced the British, not the American way<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | e<br /> | er without the &quot;r&quot; on the end (again, the way British people pronounce it)<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | i<br /> | ee<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | u<br /> | oo, but with the lips more closely rounded, more like the German &quot;u&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ü<br /> | The French &quot;u&quot; or the German &quot;ü&quot;. Not found in English. &quot;Ü&quot; is only written this way after &quot;l&quot; and &quot;n&quot;. When it occurs after j, q, x and y, it is always written as &quot;u&quot; without the umlauts, as the other &quot;u&quot; never occurs after these letters<br /> |-<br /> | y<br /> | y as in &quot;'''Y'''es&quot;: replaces &quot;i&quot; and &quot;ü&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;i&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;yi&quot; or &quot;yu&quot;.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | w<br /> | w Replaces &quot;u&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;u&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;wu&quot;. <br /> |-<br /> | ao<br /> | ao, as in &quot;Mac'''ao'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | an<br /> | As in &quot;'''Ann'''&quot; spoken by people from Northern England<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ang<br /> | More like &quot;ahng&quot;, never like the &quot;ang&quot; in &quot;angry&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ei<br /> | Like &quot;ay&quot; in &quot;d'''ay'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | en<br /> | Like &quot;'''an'''&quot; when it is unstressed, also similar to &quot;'''earn'''&quot; when said by British people (without the &quot;r&quot; being pronounced, but not drawn out.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | eng<br /> | &quot;erng&quot;; similar, but not the same as the &quot;ung&quot; in &quot;bung&quot; when spoken by American speakers of English<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ie<br /> | The same as '''Yeah'''. Written &quot;ye&quot; on its own.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | in / yin<br /> | As in &quot;'''in'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | iong / yong<br /> | yoong; like &quot;'''young'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ong<br /> | oong; like &quot;b'''ung'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England, never like the &quot;ong&quot; in &quot;song&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ou<br /> | Like the &quot;o&quot; in &quot;g'''o'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | un <br /> | Like &quot;'''un'''der&quot; spoken by a person from the north of England. On its own, this syllable is written as &quot;'''wen'''&quot; and pronounced accordingly<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | üe<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; sound and &quot;e&quot; as in &quot;h'''e'''n&quot;. Not found in English. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yue&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ün<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; soung and n. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yun&quot;<br /> <br /> |} <br /> <br /> In addition to the pinyin letters, there are also four tone marks to indicate which of the four tones is to be used. For example, the syllable &quot;ma&quot; may be written &quot;mā&quot;, &quot;má&quot;, &quot;mǎ&quot; or &quot;mà&quot;<br /> <br /> [[Chinese characters]] are all monosyllabic and may exist on their own as individual words or be combined together to make new ones. This is reflected in Pinyin, for example the character &quot;车&quot; (chē) on its own means &quot;vehicle&quot;. However, it is combined with another character to make &quot;火车&quot; (huǒchē), which is &quot;train&quot;. In this instance &quot;huǒchē&quot; is written as one word and not two. Pinyin words are also [[capitalise]]d in the European fashion if the words refered to are [[proper nouns]]. [[Chinese names]] in pinyin treat the [[surname]] and [[given name]] as two words, so the name of China's current [[president]] is written as [[Hu Jintao]] (Hu is the surname) and not Hu Jin Tao.<br /> <br /> [[category:China]]<br /> [[category:linguistics]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pinyin&diff=279430 2007-08-28T17:30:51Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Pinyin''', also known as Hanyu Pinyin is the internationally recognised [[standard]] for [[romanising]] [[Mandarin Chinese]]. It was approved by the Chinese government in 1958 and adopted in 1979 as the basis for romanising all Chinese names and also for the teaching of Mandarin. It is used in all schools as a basic [[literacy]] tool upon which the learning of [[Chinese characters]] is based. It is also used by most universities outside [[China]], other than those in [[Taiwan]] as a basis for teaching Mandarin as a foreign language. It is also noteworthy that Taiwan has developed a variant of Hanyu Pinyin, known as [[Tongyong Pinyin]] to replace the now almost defunct [[Wade-Giles]] romanisation system that was previously used.<br /> <br /> == How Pinyin Works ==<br /> <br /> The Roman letters used in Pinyin do not necessarily have the same pronunciation value as those of English or any other language, especially q and x. Here is a table of the Pinyin letters with a rough English equivalent. The Pinyin letters are divided into ''initials'', which consist of consonants plus w and y, and ''finals'', which always start with a vowel, and which may exist as syllables on their own, except that those syllables beginning with i, u and ü always begin with y, w and y respectively.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Pinyin Letter or Combination of Letters<br /> ! English Near Equivalent<br /> |-<br /> | b<br /> | b<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | p<br /> | p<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | m<br /> | m<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | f<br /> | f<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | d<br /> | d<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | t<br /> | t<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | n<br /> | n<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | l<br /> | l<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | j<br /> | j with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | q<br /> | ch with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | x<br /> | Like &quot;sh&quot; with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | zh<br /> | Like &quot;j&quot; with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ch<br /> | ch with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | sh<br /> | sh with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | r<br /> | Not like the English &quot;r&quot;, but a sound made with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | z<br /> | dz<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | c<br /> | ts (always at the beginning of a word, unlike in English. In fact German &quot;c&quot; has the same sound before &quot;e&quot; and &quot;i&quot;)<br /> |-<br /> | s<br /> | s<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | a<br /> | a as in &quot;f'''a'''ther&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | o<br /> | o as in &quot;J'''o'''hn&quot; pronounced the British, not the American way<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | e<br /> | er without the &quot;r&quot; on the end (again, the way British people pronounce it)<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | i<br /> | ee<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | u<br /> | oo, but with the lips more closely rounded, more like the German &quot;u&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ü<br /> | The French &quot;u&quot; or the German &quot;ü&quot;. Not found in English. &quot;Ü&quot; is only written this way after &quot;l&quot; and &quot;n&quot;. When it occurs after j, q, x and y, it is always written as &quot;u&quot; without the umlauts, as the other &quot;u&quot; never occurs after these letters<br /> |-<br /> | y<br /> | y as in &quot;'''Y'''es&quot;: replaces &quot;i&quot; and &quot;ü&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;i&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;yi&quot; or &quot;yu&quot;.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | w<br /> | w Replaces &quot;u&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;u&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;wu&quot;. <br /> |-<br /> | ao<br /> | ao, as in &quot;Mac'''ao'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | an<br /> | As in &quot;'''Ann'''&quot; spoken by people from Northern England<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ang<br /> | More like &quot;ahng&quot;, never like the &quot;ang&quot; in &quot;angry&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ei<br /> | Like &quot;ay&quot; in &quot;d'''ay'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | en<br /> | Like &quot;'''an'''&quot; when it is unstressed, also similar to &quot;'''earn'''&quot; when said by British people (without the &quot;r&quot; being pronounced, but not drawn out.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | eng<br /> | &quot;erng&quot;; similar, but not the same as the &quot;ung&quot; in &quot;bung&quot; when spoken by American speakers of English<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ie<br /> | The same as '''Yeah'''. Written &quot;ye&quot; on its own.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | in / yin<br /> | As in &quot;'''in'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | iong / yong<br /> | yoong; like &quot;'''young'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ong<br /> | oong; like &quot;b'''ung'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England, never like the &quot;ong&quot; in &quot;song&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ou<br /> | Like the &quot;o&quot; in &quot;g'''o'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | un <br /> | Like &quot;'''un'''der&quot; spoken by a person from the north of England. On its own, this syllable is written as &quot;'''wen'''&quot; and pronounced accordingly<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | üe<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; sound and &quot;e&quot; as in &quot;h'''e'''n&quot;. Not found in English. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yue&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ün<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; soung and n. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yun&quot;<br /> <br /> |} <br /> <br /> In addition to the pinyin letters, there are also four tone marks to indicate which of the four tones is to be used. For example, the syllable &quot;ma&quot; may be written &quot;mā&quot;, &quot;má&quot;, &quot;mǎ&quot; or &quot;mà&quot;<br /> <br /> [[Chinese characters]] are all monosyllabic and may exist on their own as individual words or be combined together to make new ones. This is reflected in Pinyin, for example the character &quot;车&quot; (chē) on its own means &quot;vehicle&quot;. However, it is combined with another character to make &quot;火车&quot; (huǒchē), which is &quot;train&quot;. In this instance &quot;huǒchē&quot; is written as one word and not two. Pinyin words are also [[capitalise]]d in the European fashion if the words refered to are [[proper nouns]]. [[Chinese names]] in pinyin treat the [[surname]] and [[given name]] as two words, so the name of China's current [[president]] is written as [[Hu Jintao]] (Hu is the surname) and not Hu Jin Tao.<br /> <br /> [[category:China]]<br /> [[category:linguistics]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pinyin&diff=279429 2007-08-28T17:30:06Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Pinyin''', also known as Hanyu Pinyin is the internationally recognised [[standard]] for [[romanising]] [[Mandarin Chinese]]. It was approved by the Chinese government in 1958 and adopted in 1979 as the basis for romanising all Chinese names and also for the teaching of Mandarin. It is used in all schools as a basic [[literacy]] tool upon which the learning of [[Chinese characters]] is based. It is also used by most universities outside [[China]], other than those in [[Taiwan]] as a basis for teaching Mandarin as a foreign language. It is also noteworthy that Taiwan has developed a variant of Hanyu Pinyin, known as [[Tongyong Pinyin]] to replace the now almost defunct [[Wade-Giles]] romanisation system that was previously used.<br /> <br /> == How Pinyin Works ==<br /> <br /> The Roman letters used in Pinyin do not necessarily have the same pronunciation value as those of English or any other language, especially q and x. Here is a table of the Pinyin letters with a rough English equivalent. The Pinyin letters are divided into ''initials'', which consist of consonants plus w and y, and ''finals'', which always start with a vowel, and which may exist as syllables on their own, except that those syllables beginning with i, u and ü always begin with y, w and y respectively.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Pinyin Letter or Combination of Letters<br /> ! English Near Equivalent<br /> |-<br /> | b<br /> | b<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | p<br /> | p<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | m<br /> | m<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | f<br /> | f<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | d<br /> | d<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | t<br /> | t<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | n<br /> | n<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | l<br /> | l<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | j<br /> | j with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | q<br /> | ch with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | x<br /> | Like &quot;sh&quot; with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | zh<br /> | Like &quot;j&quot; with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ch<br /> | ch with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | sh<br /> | sh with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | r<br /> | Not like the English &quot;r&quot;, but a sound made with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | z<br /> | dz<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | c<br /> | ts (always at the beginning of a word, unlike in English. In fact German &quot;c&quot; has the same sound before &quot;e&quot; and &quot;i&quot;)<br /> |-<br /> | s<br /> | s<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | a<br /> | a as in &quot;f'''a'''ther&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | o<br /> | o as in &quot;J'''o'''hn&quot; pronounced the British, not the American way<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | e<br /> | er without the &quot;r&quot; on the end (again, the way British people pronounce it)<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | i<br /> | ee<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | u<br /> | oo, but with the lips more closely rounded, more like the German &quot;u&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ü<br /> | The French &quot;u&quot; or the German &quot;ü&quot;. Not found in English. &quot;Ü&quot; is only written this way after &quot;l&quot; and &quot;n&quot;. When it occurs after j, q, x and y, it is always written as &quot;u&quot; without the umlauts, as the other &quot;u&quot; never occurs after these letters<br /> |-<br /> | y<br /> | y as in &quot;'''Y'''es&quot;: replaces &quot;i&quot; and &quot;ü&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;i&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;yi&quot; or &quot;yu&quot;.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | w<br /> | w Replaces &quot;u&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;u&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;wu&quot;. <br /> |-<br /> | ao<br /> | ao, as in &quot;Mac'''ao'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | an<br /> | As in &quot;'''Ann'''&quot; spoken by people from Northern England<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ang<br /> | More like &quot;ahng&quot;, never like the &quot;ang&quot; in &quot;angry&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ei<br /> | Like &quot;ay&quot; in &quot;d'''ay'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | en<br /> | Like &quot;'''an'''&quot; when it is unstressed, also similar to &quot;'''earn'''&quot; when said by British people (without the &quot;r&quot; being pronounced, but not drawn out.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | eng<br /> | &quot;erng&quot;; similar, but not the same as the &quot;ung&quot; in &quot;bung&quot; when spoken by American speakers of English<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ie<br /> | The same as '''Yeah'''. Written &quot;ye&quot; on its own.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | in / yin<br /> | As in &quot;'''in'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | iong / yong<br /> | yoong; like &quot;'''young'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ong<br /> | oong; like &quot;b'''ung'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England, never like the &quot;ong&quot; in &quot;song&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ou<br /> | Like the &quot;o&quot; in &quot;g'''o'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | un <br /> | Like &quot;'''un'''der&quot; spoken by a person from the north of England. On its own, this syllable is written as &quot;'''wen'''&quot; and pronounced accordingly<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | üe<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; sound and &quot;e&quot; as in &quot;h'''e'''n&quot;. Not found in English. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yue&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ün<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; soung and n. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yun&quot;<br /> <br /> |} <br /> <br /> In addition to the pinyin letters, there are also four tone marks to indicate which of the four tones is to be used. For example, the syllable &quot;ma&quot; may be written &quot;mā&quot;, &quot;má&quot;, &quot;mǎ&quot; or &quot;mà&quot;<br /> <br /> [[Chinese characters]] are all monosyllabic and may exist on their own as individual words or be combined together to make new ones. This is reflected in Pinyin, for example the character &quot;车&quot; (chē) on its own means &quot;vehicle&quot;. However, it is combined with another character to make &quot;火车&quot; (huǒchē), which is &quot;train&quot;. In this instance &quot;huǒchē&quot; is written as one word and not two. Pinyin words are also [[capitalise]]d in the European fashion if the words refered to are [[proper nouns]]. [[Chinese names]] in pinyin treat the surname and given name as two words, so the name of China's current [[president]] is written as [[Hu Jintao]] (Hu is the surname) and not Hu Jin Tao.<br /> <br /> [[category:China]]<br /> [[category:linguistics]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pinyin&diff=279428 2007-08-28T17:28:17Z

<p>Luojie: additional information</p> <hr /> <div>'''Pinyin''', also known as Hanyu Pinyin is the internationally recognised [[standard]] for [[romanising]] [[Mandarin Chinese]]. It was approved by the Chinese government in 1958 and adopted in 1979 as the basis for romanising all Chinese names and also for the teaching of Mandarin. It is used in all schools as a basic [[literacy]] tool upon which the learning of [[Chinese characters]] is based. It is also used by most universities outside [[China]], other than those in [[Taiwan]] as a basis for teaching Mandarin as a foreign language. It is also noteworthy that Taiwan has developed a variant of Hanyu Pinyin, known as [[Tongyong Pinyin]] to replace the now almost defunct [[Wade-Giles]] romanisation system that was previously used.<br /> <br /> == How Pinyin Works ==<br /> <br /> The Roman letters used in Pinyin do not necessarily have the same pronunciation value as those of English or any other language, especially q and x. Here is a table of the Pinyin letters with a rough English equivalent. The Pinyin letters are divided into ''initials'', which consist of consonants plus w and y, and ''finals'', which always start with a vowel, and which may exist as syllables on their own, except that those syllables beginning with i, u and ü always begin with y, w and y respectively.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Pinyin Letter or Combination of Letters<br /> ! English Near Equivalent<br /> |-<br /> | b<br /> | b<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | p<br /> | p<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | m<br /> | m<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | f<br /> | f<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | d<br /> | d<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | t<br /> | t<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | n<br /> | n<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | l<br /> | l<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | j<br /> | j with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | q<br /> | ch with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | x<br /> | Like &quot;sh&quot; with the tongue flat in the mouth<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | zh<br /> | Like &quot;j&quot; with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ch<br /> | ch with the tongue curled touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | sh<br /> | sh with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | r<br /> | Not like the English &quot;r&quot;, but a sound made with the tongue touching the palate<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | z<br /> | dz<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | c<br /> | ts (always at the beginning of a word, unlike in English. In fact German &quot;c&quot; has the same sound before &quot;e&quot; and &quot;i&quot;)<br /> |-<br /> | s<br /> | s<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | a<br /> | a as in &quot;f'''a'''ther&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | o<br /> | o as in &quot;J'''o'''hn&quot; pronounced the British, not the American way<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | e<br /> | er without the &quot;r&quot; on the end (again, the way British people pronounce it)<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | i<br /> | ee<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | u<br /> | oo, but with the lips more closely rounded, more like the German &quot;u&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ü<br /> | The French &quot;u&quot; or the German &quot;ü&quot;. Not found in English. &quot;Ü&quot; is only written this way after &quot;l&quot; and &quot;n&quot;. When it occurs after j, q, x and y, it is always written as &quot;u&quot; without the umlauts, as the other &quot;u&quot; never occurs after these letters<br /> |-<br /> | y<br /> | y as in &quot;'''Y'''es&quot;: replaces &quot;i&quot; and &quot;ü&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;i&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;yi&quot; or &quot;yu&quot;.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | w<br /> | w Replaces &quot;u&quot; at the beginning of a syllable. If the sound is &quot;u&quot; on its own, then the syllable is written &quot;wu&quot;. <br /> |-<br /> | ao<br /> | ao, as in &quot;Mac'''ao'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | an<br /> | As in &quot;'''Ann'''&quot; spoken by people from Northern England<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ang<br /> | More like &quot;ahng&quot;, never like the &quot;ang&quot; in &quot;angry&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ei<br /> | Like &quot;ay&quot; in &quot;d'''ay'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | en<br /> | Like &quot;'''an'''&quot; when it is unstressed, also similar to &quot;'''earn'''&quot; when said by British people (without the &quot;r&quot; being pronounced, but not drawn out.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | eng<br /> | &quot;erng&quot;; similar, but not the same as the &quot;ung&quot; in &quot;bung&quot; when spoken by American speakers of English<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ie<br /> | The same as '''Yeah'''. Written &quot;ye&quot; on its own.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | in / yin<br /> | As in &quot;'''in'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | iong / yong<br /> | yoong; like &quot;'''young'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ong<br /> | oong; like &quot;b'''ung'''&quot; when said by somebody from the north of England, never like the &quot;ong&quot; in &quot;song&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ou<br /> | Like the &quot;o&quot; in &quot;g'''o'''&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | un <br /> | Like &quot;'''un'''der&quot; spoken by a person from the north of England. On its own, this syllable is written as &quot;'''wen'''&quot; and pronounced accordingly<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | üe<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; sound and &quot;e&quot; as in &quot;h'''e'''n&quot;. Not found in English. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yue&quot;<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | ün<br /> | A combination of the &quot;ü&quot; soung and n. Without an initial consonant, this syllable is written &quot;yun&quot;<br /> <br /> |} <br /> <br /> In addition to the pinyin letters, there are also four tone marks to indicate which of the four tones is to be used. For example, the syllable &quot;ma&quot; may be written &quot;mā&quot;, &quot;má&quot;, &quot;mǎ&quot; or &quot;mà&quot;<br /> <br /> [[Chinese characters]] are all monosyllabic and may exist on their own as individual words or be combined together to make new ones. This is reflected in Pinyin, for example the character &quot;车&quot; (chē)on its own means &quot;vehicle&quot;. However, it is combined with onther character to make &quot;火车&quot; (huǒchē), which is &quot;train&quot;. In this instance &quot;huǒchē&quot; is written as one word and not two. Pinyin words are also [[capitalise]]d in the European fashion if the words refered to are [[proper nouns]]. [[Chinese names]] in pinyin treat the surname and given name as two words, so the name of China's current [[president]] is written as [[Hu Jintao]] (Hu is the surname) and not Hu Jin Tao.<br /> <br /> [[category:China]]<br /> [[category:linguistics]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wade-Giles&diff=279333 2007-08-28T15:55:54Z

<p>Luojie: additional information</p> <hr /> <div>The Wade-Giles system of Romanisation of [[Chinese]] characters (rendering Chinese characters in Roman - ie western - letters) was devised in the nineteenth century and was the main method used for most of the twentieth century. In recent decades it has been replaced to a significant degree in popular use by the [[Pinyin]] system, devised by scholars in the [[People's Republic of China]] in the 1950s.<br /> <br /> The system was first devised in 1859 by Sir Thomas Francis Wade (1818-1895), a British army officer who had served in the first [[Opium War]] (1839-42) and who in 1845 became a student interpreter in China. The system was modified in 1892 by Herbert Giles (1845-1935) and acquired its double-barrelled name.<br /> <br /> Among the drawbacks of the system are that pronunciation of certain consonants is only obvious to the initiated. In Wade-Giles, P is pronounced as the letter ''B''; P' is ''P''. Likewise K is pronounced ''J'' and K' is pronounced ''K'' Thus the place name transliterated at Peking was always intended be pronounced ''Be(i) Jing'' (as in the Pinyin ''Beijing'')rather than ''Pea-king''. These anomalies, and very many others, are not present in the Pinyin system which, for English-speakers at any rate, gives a much more accurate version of the Chinese words.<br /> <br /> But some characteristics of Wade-Giles have notable advantages. A single letter is used as the basis for pairs of phonemes that differ only in aspiration. This more accurately representes how Chinese treats these pairs, from a phonological perspective (in terms of which vowels and consonants with which they can co-occur). Wade-Giles is more linguistically accurate than Pinyin, which uses different basic symbols for these phoneme pairs. In many cases, the orthography used by Wade-Giles for dipthongs is also more phonetically accurate than the pinyin alternative. Consequently, many linguists prefer to use Wade-Giles rather than Pinyin. However Pinyin is now the international standard for romanising Mandarin Chinese, and is used by most universities as the basis for teaching the language.<br /> <br /> [[Category:China]]<br /> [[Category:Languages]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dependent_territories&diff=271320 2007-08-19T13:09:51Z

<p>Luojie: New page: A '''Dependent Territory''' is a country or territory administered by another country, usually in a different geographical location. Another word for a dependent territory is [[col...</p> <hr /> <div>A '''Dependent Territory''' is a [[country]] or [[territory]] administered by another country, usually in a different geographical location. Another word for a dependent territory is [[colony]] or [[overseas territory]]. Dependent territories often have their own [[government]] with near complete local [[autonomy]]. [[Defence]] and [[foreign relations]] are normally handled by the territory's sovereign power.<br /> <br /> Examples of dependent territories include [[Gibraltar]], [[New Caledonia]] and [[Bermuda]].</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&diff=271311 2007-08-19T13:01:16Z

<p>Luojie: Addition of further information about HK's economy</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:674uygjh.png|right|thumb|250px|The flag of Hong Kong.]]<br /> <br /> '''Hong Kong''' ([[Mandarin Chinese]] '''香港''' Xianggang） is a [[Special Administrative Region]] of [[China]], situated at the mouth of the [[Pearl River]] in southern China, opposite the former Portuguese possession of [[Macau]]. It consists of Hong Kong, Lamma, Lantau and various smaller islands, and [[Kowloon]] and the [[New Territories]] on the Chinese mainland. The name Hong Kong means ''fragrant harbour''.<br /> <br /> The population of Hong Kong is about 7 million people. The largest urban areas are Kowloon (With a population about 2 million), Central, Tsuen Wan and Sha Tin. Property prices in Hong Kong's Central District are the second most expensive in the world, after those of central [[Tokyo]].<br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> <br /> Before 1997, Hong Kong was a British crown [[colony]]. The island had been ceded to [[Britain]] in perpetuity by the Treaty of [[Nanjing]] in 1842 at the conclusion of the [[Opium War]] (having been occupied by British forces in 1839), and Kowloon was ceded in 1860, but the New Territories had only been leased in 1898 for 99 years in an agreement with the Qing government (using the &quot;preferred nation status&quot; of the British empire at the time). In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the United Kingdom approached China as to the return of their reversion to China. The Chinese government were adamant that the whole of Hong Kong should be returned to China and not just the New Territories. [[Margaret Thatcher]], the [[Prime Minister]] at the time wanted to hold out for continued British rule in some form, but without success. Realising that the remaining possessions lacked a viable water supply, and without Chinese acquiescence their continued retention by the United Kingdom would have become impractical, she relented and agreed to the Chinese proposal of &quot;one country, two systems&quot; under which Hong Kong's freedoms and way of life would be guaranteed for fifty years following the territory's return in 1997. The two countries signed a treaty known as the Sino-British Joint Declaration to that effect and Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region of China with a Basic Law giving effect to those promises on 1 July 1997. <br /> <br /> === World War II ===<br /> <br /> Hong Kong was invaded and occupied by [[Japan]] in December 1941. Many of its people were forced to leave, while those who remained were forced to change their Hong Kong dollars into Japanese Military Yen at a very unfavourable exchange rate. The occupation was an extremely difficult time for the locals, who had difficulty finding provisions, and more so for both civilian [[Allied]] [[citizens]] who were interned in a prison camp at Stanley, and Allied military personnel, who were made [[prisoners of war]] and forced to work for the Japanese in harsh conditions with much ill-treatment. Hong Kong was finally liberated by the British in August 1945 after the Japanese surrender.<br /> <br /> == Trade and Industry ==<br /> <br /> Hong Kong's economy was founded upon trade between Britain and China, most notably the trade in [[opium]], which was not made an illegal drug until the early 20th century. After [[World War II]], many refugees from China fled to Hong Kong to escape from the Chinese [[civil war]], with further inluxes following the [[Communist]] victory in 1949. This led to the development of light industry in the territory and the emergence of some of today's major business families. Hong Kong thus became a major light industrial export centre. When China opened up its economy in the 1980's many of these light industrial businesses moved their manufacturing centres over the border in search of lower land and labour costs, with the exception of the garment industry, which was governed by quotas under the [[Multi-Fibre Agreement]]. The garment industry resorted to clever subterfuge by transferring most of the manufacturing process to China, exporting the unfinished goods to Hong Kong, where the process was completed, thereby allowing them to place &quot;Made in Hong Kong&quot; labels on the finished product.<br /> <br /> The transfer of manufacturing industry to China has resulted in a further transformation of the Hong Kong economy to a service-based economy, with its financial and legal services highly regarded internationally.<br /> <br /> [[Image:Hongkong.jpg|center|thumb|950px|The Hong Kong skyline.]]<br /> <br /> Hong Kong has an excellent deep-water [[harbour]], and is one of the world's largest and busiest ports. <br /> <br /> It is a major tourist destination and transport hub.<br /> <br /> It is also a major [[drug]]-[[smuggling]] centre, notably of [[heroin]].<br /> <br /> == The arts ==<br /> <br /> Hong Kong has the world's third largest film industry after [[Bollywood]] and [[Hollywood]]. Most films are produced in the [[Cantonese]] language, although a few Hong Kong stars, such as [[Jackie Chan]] are known internationally.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Cities]]<br /> [[Category:China]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative&diff=265490 2007-08-12T13:30:07Z

<p>Luojie: /* Conservative communists?? */</p> <hr /> <div>{{protected|Aschlafly}}<br /> <br /> == George W. Bush a conservative? ==<br /> <br /> Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&amp;diff=80273&amp;oldid=80267]:<br /> :::''&quot;one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.&quot;''<br /> :::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...<br /> ::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The article includes ''&quot;Return of prayer in school,&quot;'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.<br /> <br /> ::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American &quot;conservatism&quot; falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.) <br /> ::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007<br /> <br /> George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to &quot;doing away with&quot; the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf &lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;]. That document which might have been considered &quot;liberal&quot; at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a &quot;traditional law.&quot; <br /> A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A &quot;neocon&quot; is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.<br /> <br /> So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?<br /> <br /> sources<br /> 1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism<br /> 2: http://www.spp.gov/<br /> 3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf<br /> <br /> [[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==definition==<br /> Could someone explain what is meant by &quot;Economic allocative efficiency&quot;? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==The List==<br /> The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.<br /> <br /> == Inaccurate information ==<br /> <br /> &quot;Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth.&quot;<br /> <br /> This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.<br /> --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the &quot;Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)&quot;''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that &quot;Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy.&quot; You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.<br /> <br /> *Your paragraph read: ''&quot;In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues.&quot;'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.<br /> <br /> *Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a &quot;strong libertarian bent.&quot; They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement &quot;Conservatives believe in income redistribution&quot; is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:<br /> ::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''<br /> <br /> :Now look at the definition of liberalism:<br /> ::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''<br /> <br /> :Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.<br /> <br /> :The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about &quot;big government&quot; or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an &quot;A&quot; in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an &quot;F&quot;. I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more &quot;Conservatives&quot; aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to &quot;label&quot; political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007<br /> <br /> *&quot;generally flat tax, equal for all.&quot; Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point &gt;&gt; Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.<br /> <br /> ==Goldwater Conservatives==<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer,&quot; recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. &quot;It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene,&quot; Buckley continued. &quot;But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching.&quot;<br /> <br /> Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, &quot;[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback.&quot; By &quot;Goldwater conservatism&quot; Will meant &quot;muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions.&quot;<br /> <br /> Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that &quot;Goldwater conservative&quot; had &quot;a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian.&quot; Senator John McCain said that Goldwater &quot;disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian.&quot;<br /> <br /> What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.<br /> <br /> But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.<br /> <br /> Human Nature<br /> <br /> Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, &quot;The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline.&quot; Conservative principles &quot;are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation.&quot; In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote: <br /> <br /> <br /> The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.<br /> <br /> <br /> The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:<br /> <br /> <br /> Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.<br /> <br /> <br /> In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled &quot;freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God.&quot; He warned that<br /> <br /> <br /> those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.<br /> <br /> <br /> Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.<br /> <br /> Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, &quot;What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?&quot; His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the &quot;moral issue.&quot; In one commercial an announcer shouts, &quot;Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!&quot; before Goldwater proclaims: &quot;Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world.&quot;<br /> <br /> Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, &quot;Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington,&quot; while the narrator calls on voters to &quot;put conscience back in government.&quot; A third advertisement asked &quot;What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere.&quot; A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:<br /> <br /> <br /> Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.<br /> <br /> <br /> Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, &quot;'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'&quot; Goldwater said, &quot;The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay,&quot; and pledged &quot;every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength.&quot;<br /> <br /> The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called &quot;Choice.&quot; It focused on the &quot;moral issue,&quot; and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.<br /> <br /> Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: &quot;Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot.&quot; Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.<br /> <br /> The Rise of the Moral Issue<br /> <br /> Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, &quot;Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?&quot; He answered: &quot;Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state.&quot; Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: &quot;you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform.&quot; The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation &quot;to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials&quot;; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.<br /> <br /> The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must &quot;recapture the lost art of learning.&quot; He argued that<br /> <br /> <br /> in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.<br /> <br /> <br /> As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.<br /> In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:<br /> <br /> <br /> Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debate…. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.<br /> <br /> <br /> It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's &quot;greatest contribution to American politics&quot; and his &quot;great credit in historical terms&quot; lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the &quot;moral issue&quot; onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: &quot;the Bible and the God of the desert.&quot;<br /> <br /> It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, &quot;almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater],&quot; figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.<br /> <br /> Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed &quot;gay rights&quot; legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view. <br /> <br /> Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, &quot;Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass.&quot; He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.<br /> <br /> Liberty and Morality<br /> <br /> So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between &quot;Goldwater conservatism&quot; and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a &quot;Religious Right&quot; with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)<br /> <br /> When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.<br /> <br /> Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that &quot;it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions,&quot; he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]<br /> <br /> :*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED<br /> <br /> '''[[BNP]]'''<br /> <br /> The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == Liberal List. ==<br /> <br /> <br /> Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:<br /> :Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.<br /> :Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.<br /> Concise AND accurate! <br /> --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Why was my addition deleted? ==<br /> <br /> I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.<br /> <br /> *I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Evolution ==<br /> <br /> The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> **I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible &quot;reasoning&quot; seems to be the &quot;We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts&quot; from the Differences page, with &quot;facts&quot; having a VERY interesting definition (&quot;A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth&quot;). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit<br /> **And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Origins and conservative presidents ==<br /> <br /> &lt;s&gt;If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/s&gt; Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Addition to definition==<br /> Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights<br /> Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves &amp; for their own success<br /> Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2<br /> <br /> *&quot;Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights...&quot; Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?<br /> <br /> ==Lincoln a Conservative?==<br /> How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> :We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy. {{unsigned|Getbackloretta66}}<br /> <br /> == Andrew Jackson ==<br /> <br /> If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Conservative communists?? ==<br /> <br /> It would be good to add in further discussion of the term &quot;conservative&quot; in the article. When discussing the politics of countries ruled by a Communist Party, such as China, the word &quot;conservative&quot; is used to refer to Communist Party members, especially officials who hold to traditional communist values such as central planning, state ownership of the economy, stronger censorship of the media and stronger repression of dissidents and practitioners of religion, especially Christians. The term &quot;liberal&quot; used when discussing these matters refers to those Communist Party members who favour economic reform, with more private involvement in the economy, more freedom of expression and movement towards a more liberal political regime, perhaps even towards a democratic system. I believe the word also has further definitions which are worth discussing, and then some further paragraphs could be added to the article to make it more complete. {{Unsigned|Luojie}}<br /> :''ROFLMAO !!!'' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> It's true!! Check out the China pages of the South China Morning Post. BTW, there are also conservative and liberal Muslims. The former will adhere more closely to traditional Islam and are more likely to support terrorism than the liberal Muslims who want to live a more Western lifestyle, and so interpret Islam to fit their material and other desires.<br /> :Yes, I recall the &quot;Kremlin conservatives&quot; at the end of the Soviet era, the reactionaries that wanted to preserve Communism. Very reminiscent of the reactionaries in the U.S. Democratic party who refuse to reform Social Security. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> As Ma Lik, the chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has just passed away, so the media (e.g. the South China Morning Post) brought up the word conservative as it is used in the Hong Kong political context. Here in HK, conservative means pro-Beijing, not wanting to introduce universal suffrage at an early date and in favour of keeping functional constituencies (legislative seats reserved for special interest groups such as tycoons). Pro-democracy groups which want universal suffrage as soon as possible and which place importance on human rights are considered &quot;liberal&quot;, even though they may fit the definition of conservative when it comes to social matters such as gambling and small government[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alphabet&diff=264908 2007-08-11T14:09:11Z

<p>Luojie: </p> <hr /> <div>An '''alphabet''' is a series of symbols that enable the spoken word to be recorded for later use and are the foundation stone of [[writing]]. The word &quot;alphabet&quot; is a combination of the first two letters ([[alpha]] and [[beta]]) of the [[Greek]] alphabet. Modern alphabets have evolved from ancient ''pictograms'' where a spoken sound was represented by small drawing of an object. These pictures eventually developed into formalised graphical symbols. By convention these symbols are written in a specific order ([[alphabetic]] order). <br /> <br /> <br /> == Latin Alphabets ==<br /> <br /> The '''Latin alphabet''' (or '''Roman alphabet''') is the most widely-used [[alphabetic writing system]] in the world.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Alphabet.html&lt;/ref&gt; Most Western alphabets are based on the script of ancient [[Rome]] which comprises the following 23 characters or letters:<br /> <br /> :[[A|Aa]], [[B|Bb]], [[C|Cc]], [[D|Dd]], [[E|Ee]], [[F|Ff]], [[G|Gg]], [[H|Hh]], [[I|Ii]], [[K|Kk]], [[L|Ll]], [[M|Mm]], [[N|Nn]], [[O|Oo]], [[P|Pp]], [[Q|Qq]], [[R|Rr]], [[S|Ss]], [[T|Tt]], [[V|Vv]], [[X|Xx]], [[Y|Yy]], [[Z|Zz]]<br /> <br /> <br /> === English Alphabet ===<br /> In the English language three characters have been added to the Latin alphabet, and the English alphabet comprises the following '''26''' characters:<br /> <br /> :Aa, Bb, Cc, Dd, Ee, Ff, Gg, Hh, Ii, '''[[J|Jj]]''', Kk, Ll, Mm, Nn, Oo, Pp, Qq, Rr, Ss, Tt, '''[[U|Uu]]''', Vv, '''[[W|Ww]]''', Xx, Yy, Zz<br /> <br /> <br /> === Other Languages ===<br /> <br /> Most European languages use the same letters as the English alphabet but often less than the full 26 except in the case of imported words. Other languages have extended the alphabet with [[diacritic]]s&lt;ref&gt;Sometimes referred to as ''accented'' letter, e.g. á, ç, è, î, ñ, ü&lt;/ref&gt;, [[digraph]]s&lt;ref&gt;Two letters that represent a single sound and are regarded as distinct from their individual components, such as ''ll'' in Welsh or Spanish&lt;/ref&gt; and [[ligature]]s &lt;ref&gt;Two letters that are combined into one such as the German double-S: '''''ß'''''&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> == Greek Alphabet ==<br /> <br /> The Greek alphabet comprises the following characters:<br /> <br /> [[Alpha|Αα]], [[Beta|Ββ]], [[Gamma|Γγ]], [[Delta|Δδ]], [[Epsilon|Εε]], [[Zeta|Ζζ]], [[Eta|Ηη]], [[Theta|Θθ]], [[Iota|Ιι]], [[Kappa|Κκ]], [[Lamda|Λλ]], [[Mu|Μμ]], [[Nu|Νν]], [[Xi|Ξξ]], [[Omicron|Οο]], [[Pi|Ππ]], [[Rho| Ρ ρ]], [[Sigma|Σσς]], [[Tau|Ττ]], [[Upsilon|Υυ]], [[Phi|Φφ]], [[Chi|Χχ]], [[Psi|Ψψ]], [[Omega|Ωω]]<br /> <br /> In addition to the single letters, Greek letters may be combined to make completely new sounds, such as ντ, which makes a &quot;d&quot; sound or αυ, which makes the sound &quot;af&quot; or &quot;av&quot;.<br /> <br /> == Cyrillic Alphabet ==<br /> The '''Cyrillic alphabet''', and variants of it, is used in [[Russian]], [[Ukrainian]], [[Bulgarian]], [[Serbo-Croat]] and [[Mongolian]] (in the Republic of [[Mongolia]]). It was used in some other [[Soviet]] republics before their independence from the [[Soviet Union]], but many of these have changed to the Latin Alphabet.<br /> <br /> == Hebrew Alphabet ==<br /> <br /> The '''Hebrew alphabet''' is made up of 22 letters used in the Hebrew and [[Judaism|Jewish]] languages. The Hebrew word for &quot;alphabet&quot; is '''אלף-בית''' (&quot;alef-bet&quot;), derived from the first two letters of the alphabet. Five of the letters - Kaf, Mem, Nun, Pe and Tsadi - have a different appearance when used as the last letter in a word. The letters are written and read from right to left, and have only one case.<br /> <br /> {| style=&quot;background:lightsteelblue; color:black&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !'''[[Aleph (Hebrew)|Alef]]'''||'''[[Beth (letter)|Bet/Vet]]'''||'''[[Gimel (letter)|Gimel]]'''||'''[[Daleth|Dalet]]'''||'''[[He (letter)|He]]'''||'''[[Waw (letter)|Vav]]'''||'''[[Zayin]]'''||'''[[Khet (letter)|Khet]]'''||'''[[Teth|Tet]]'''||'''[[Yodh|Yod]]'''||'''[[Kaph|Kaf/Khaf]]'''<br /> |- <br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|א<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ב<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ג<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ד<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ה<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ו<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ז<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ח<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ט<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|י<br /> | style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|כ<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;font-size:200%; text-align:center; font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman&quot; height=40 valign=top|ך<br /> |-<br /> !'''[[Lamedh|Lamed]]'''||'''[[Mem]]'''||'''[[Nun (letter)|Nun]]'''||'''[[Samekh]]'''||'''[[Ayin]]'''||'''[[Pe (letter)|Pe/Fe]]'''||'''[[Tsade|Tsadi]]'''||'''[[Qoph|Kuf]]'''||'''[[Resh]]'''||'''[[Shin (letter)|Shin/Sin]]'''||'''[[Taw (letter)|Tav]]'''<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ל<br /> | style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|מ<br /> | style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|נ<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ס<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ע<br /> | style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|פ<br /> | style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|צ<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ק<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ר<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ש<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;; style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ת<br /> |-<br /> <br /> | style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ם<br /> | style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ן<br /> |style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ף<br /> |style=&quot;font-family:SBL Hebrew, Ezra SIL SR, Ezra SIL, Cardo, Chrysanthi Unicode, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS, Narkisim, Times New Roman;font-size:200%; text-align:center&quot; height=40 valign=top|ץ<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Arabic Alphabet ==<br /> <br /> == Korean alphabet ==<br /> <br /> == Thai alphabet ==<br /> <br /> ==Notes &amp; References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> [[Category:Languages]]</div>

Luojie https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Russian_(disambiguation)&diff=264906 2007-08-11T14:06:13Z

<p>Luojie: New page: Articles using the word '''Russian''': Russian Federation Russian Language Russian Roulette</p> <hr /> <div>Articles using the word '''Russian''':<br /> <br /> [[Russian Federation]]<br /> <br /> [[Russian Language]]<br /> <br /> [[Russian Roulette]]</div>

Luojie