Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Are atheists productive

2008-04-29T21:20:17Z

Quantumdot:

A '''second generation atheist''' is one descended and raised in an [[atheism|atheistic]] environment by parents who are both [[atheists]].

It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by '''second generation atheists'''.{{fact}} While [[atheists]] raised in [[religious]] environments have rarely been productive{{fact}}, atheists raised in atheistic environments are not known to be {{fact}}. Moreover it has been shown that second generation atheists who converted to Christianity early in life have been moderately successful.{{fact}}

As of Feb. 25, 2008, [[Google]] retrieves only 18 sites referring to '''second generation atheists'''. In contrast, [[minister's son]]s have been strikingly productive{{fact}}.
==See also==
*[[Atheism]]

[[category:Atheism]]

Conservapedia:Are atheists productive

2008-04-13T00:10:11Z

Quantumdot:

A '''second generation atheist''' is one descended and raised in an [[atheism|atheistic]] environment by parents who are both [[atheists]].

It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by '''second generation atheists'''. While [[atheists]] raised in [[religious]] environments have been productive, the same cannot be said about atheists raised in atheistic environments. Moreover it has been shown that second generation atheists who converted to Christianity early in life have been moderately successful.

As of Feb. 25, 2008, [[Google]] retrieves only 18 sites referring to '''second generation atheists'''. In contrast, [[minister's son]]s have been strikingly productive.
[[category:Atheism]]

Talk:Abortion

2008-04-12T02:45:21Z

Quantumdot: /* Rename Article? */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== profitability of abortion ==

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

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

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article weight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reply to the above ==

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

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical view of abortion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Blocked? ==

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

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

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

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

== death rate ==

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

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

== Requested edits ==

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

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

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

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

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

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

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

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Listen up==

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

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

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

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

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

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

== Confused ==

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

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

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

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

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

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

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

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

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

== Quick question ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortion in minnesota ==

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

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

== Health risks ==

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

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

== China ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Hippocrates' Oath==

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

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

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

==Image==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Picture? ==

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

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

Talk:Electron

2008-04-10T01:58:11Z

Quantumdot: /* God */

Why was the information about electrons making up atoms removed? Also, I believe it would be a positive move if the article can be worded in a way that lay people can understand and follow what is being said. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:12, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:The information wasn't removed, but the first sentence was kinda wordy and redundant. "Fundamental particle" already implies that they make up atoms, and "fundamental subatomic particle" is more specific. I agree it's a little technical right now, I'll try to work on that in a bit.[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 11:50, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== Mass, charge and spin are all wrong? ==

According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron], the electron has mass 9.10938215(45)×10–31 kg, charge –1.602176487(40)×10–19 C, and spin 1/2. [[User:Sepura|Sepura]] 18:14, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== God ==
I think it should be mentioned that God created electrons and that He endowed it with an electric charge. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 17:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I'm adding it. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 21:52, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::Bye. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:54, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Sir, what do you mean?--[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 21:58, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Electron

2008-04-10T01:58:01Z

Quantumdot: /* God */

Electron

2008-04-10T01:56:46Z

Quantumdot: Returned God to secular article

An '''electron''' is a particle created by God, which He endowed with a negative charge and a small mass compared to protons and neutrons. Man classified it as a [[lepton]]. It has a rest mass of 6.1495817*10^-31kg and carries the [[fundamental charge]] of -1.10214925*10^-14 C. God set all electrons to spin by an amount of 1/2. <ref>Gribbin: ''Q is for Quantum''</ref> Electron pairs spin in an opposite manner; this characteristic pairing allows electrons of the same quantum orbital to exist together, as the opposing magnetic dipole moments induced by each of the electrons ensures that they are attracted together.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Protons]]
*[[Neutrons]]

[[category:physics]]

Talk:Electron

2008-04-10T01:52:06Z

Quantumdot:

Talk:Abortion

2008-04-10T01:33:42Z

Quantumdot:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== profitability of abortion ==

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

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

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article weight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reply to the above ==

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

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical view of abortion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Blocked? ==

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

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

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

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

== death rate ==

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

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

== Requested edits ==

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

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

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

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

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

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

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

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Listen up==

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

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

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

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

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

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

== Confused ==

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

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

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

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

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

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

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

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

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

== Quick question ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortion in minnesota ==

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

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

== Health risks ==

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

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

== China ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Hippocrates' Oath==

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

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

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

==Image==

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki.
:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Abortion

2008-04-10T01:19:53Z

Quantumdot: Accidentally deleted protect tag; putting it back.

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== profitability of abortion ==

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

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

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article weight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reply to the above ==

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

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Historical view of abortion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Blocked? ==

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

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

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

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

== death rate ==

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

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

== Requested edits ==

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

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

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

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

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

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

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

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Listen up==

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

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

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

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

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

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

== Confused ==

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

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

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

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

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

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

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

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

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

== Quick question ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortion in minnesota ==

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

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

== Health risks ==

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

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

== China ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Hippocrates' Oath==

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

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

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

==Image==

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki.
:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Abortion

2008-04-10T01:18:40Z

Quantumdot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

:While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Abortiontv.com? Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

The Bible clearly indicates in Jeremiah 1 and the Psalms that God regards an unborn baby as being a fully human being separate from any other, and as such, is subject to the protection from being murdered in the 6th Commandment. The Bible also has a great deal of historical evidence to support its accuracy. A read through Josh Mcdowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

:::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion
Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

== Reply to the above ==

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet: http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm

and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: http://www.cplusc.co.uk/risks.html (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/04/04/nmeat04.xml

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23311428.htm --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]] 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Every study denying an ABC link that I have looked at, such as [[Harvard Abortion Study]], I have found to be fraudulent or misleading. How many of those pro-abortion studies have you actually looked at? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Denying, pro-abortion? LOL, nice wording. Your opinions on these studies '''do not permit''' you to pretend they don't exist and not include them in the article. I have read recent studies, and GASP, I find them flawed regurgitations of scientific consensus. Doesn't excuse your excuses and assumptions about me and the researchers. After you're done getting over yourself and "pro-abortion" notions (people/scientists are allowed to simply be wrong without a grandiose agenda), mention them in the article with relevant (referenced) criticism; if you can't find criticism, then include them anyway! Also, don't refer to the studies as "Lancet" and "Harvard", that is authoritative wording used by anti-abortion breast cancer reporters (which makes up the majority, something you should also substantiate/analyze in the article, but you don't bother). Instead you should call these studies, "Melbye" and "Michels" studies, to clarify shortsighted people can be in charge scientific studies, not just online encyclopedias. If you just reference marginalized science and scientists, then your article will be of marginal quality, importance and persuasiveness. But hey, whatever, it's conservapedia that ends up looking bad. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 19:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT) 

:::You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::That does not answer why studies indicating no link are not included. The answer seems obvious, they aren't included because people write about what they want to hear. There are very large studies indicating no link -- which form the current scientific consensus by the way -- and so should be included. Murray is assuming they are "methodologically sound," I do not take the NCI's nor the media's interpretation of the evidence at face value; but how people here think it is okay to excluded from the article is beyond me.

::::Also, there is no mention of criticism of studies which indicate an ABC link, such as response bias and small data sets. There is plenty of criticism of these studies but has not been mentioned here. The section also repeatedly makes use of the word "expert", yet cites no expert who concludes there is marginal or no ABC link; I'm sure they exist. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

If a woman's chance of getting breast cancer is x, then what you're implying with articles like these headlines is that an abortion raises that chance to "x plus something", when the reality is that it stays the same - only if she gives birth does the probability go to "x minus something".
This is not the way a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should written. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:35, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Historical view of abortion ==

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

: Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

: I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.

: Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

: Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT

==Portugal==
Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.
--[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT

== Blocked? ==

So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally, Conservapedia is not a ''free'' encyclopedia, but a ''trustworthy'' encyclopedia. If vandalism or edit clashes break out then pages should be blocked. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: What do the above comments have to do with whether something is "free"? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== death rate ==

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is
:''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''
Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::*<nowiki>:</nowiki>D There's your smile! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed the same thing that [[User:Myk|Myk]] mentioned above but no one seems to have addressed it. If the sentence is going to make the billion-dollar-industry claim, then shouldn't the sources, you know, back that statement up somehow instead of being remotely and tangentially related?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.

: If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Listen up==

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. ''At this point'' there is '''no''' credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

:Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Confused ==

Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== But what about the benefits of abortion? ==

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:
*Saving the mother's life
*Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
*Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer
I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: http://bcpinstitute.org/printabc_html.htm '''However, are there more sources? '''

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).

::I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
::The point isn't that '''Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad!''' but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.

: Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.

: A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the ''Economist'' published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/research_detail.asp?item=94. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.

: History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???

: Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:
#Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose [[elective abortion]] rather than bring their baby into the world
#There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.

Related news article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

Study abstract:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814

Full text of study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

== Quick question ==

What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks :D --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::That says "thou shalt not kill". I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The "thou shalt not kill" rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, it says "You are not to murder". For many of us, that includes life in the womb. I am probably a bit more liberal than some, in that I do feel it is ok to debate the issue, but if you believe, as i do, that an unborn child is human, then "No murder" applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says "thou shalt not kill". I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says "thou shalt not kill" as well. Which version are you using? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between "dont kill" and "dont murder", including such issues as the death penalty, etc. Some will argue (perhaps correctly) that nearly-cannonical translations such as KJV can be taken as is since they are so widely accepted. I could go on forever, but I wont. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

===Round 2===
I never seem to have gotten a clear answer above, so I'll try again: Where does the Bible say that life ''begins at conception''? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that life begins at conception is not a universally shared one and actually a certain paradox exists because of that reason. The idea is that "potential life" is created at conception. Many people, apparently, believe that life begins at conception as a cell is formed, however whether this is actually life depends on your definition of "life". I assume that from a religious perspective one would assume that this is the moment where the soul enters the body and the soul is then released when it is killed and thus the moment it is actually immoral to cause the destruction of that life. To my understanding people of the Jewish faith believe that life begins with one's first breath. This being said I know of no reason why that definition has changed with Christianity, and I am not aware of any Bible verse that discusses when a soul enters a body. So, unless I'm wrong no biblical scriture mentions anything about abortion. It does bring up an interesting point in the process. The first ammendment of the American Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, thus providing a legal definition of when "life" occurs and making abortion prior to that point would be restricting the religious freedoms of others because it is creating morality where morality is unclear and different according to different religions and beliefs. --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

I see a logical problem with what appears to be a an attempt to link abortion to a number of health problems. Opposition to abortion is not based on the notion of risks to the mother, it is based on the risk to the fetus. There is a 100% chance of fetal death. If studies showed conclusively that say: Abortion had no effect on cancer risk and Early term abortion was safer for the mother than full term delivery (Which it is), pretty much all the people who oppose abortion now would still oppose abortion, because of the fetal death issue.

--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: The logical flaw is yours. The link between abortion and breast cancer should be disclosed to the mother regardless of one's views on abortion. It is the abortion industry and its allies and recipients of federal funding who have a motivation to cover up this link, which cannot seriously be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Any doctor should disclose all known risks and benefits for any procedure, and my comment did not seek to dispute the existence of a link. I am not a doctor/cancer researcher and would not pretend to know about that. But the problem is that if it could be shown that an abortion presented lower overall risk, making the choice to abort based on that would still be the height of selfishness and would in my view be immoral. What I am saying is that if you frame an argument against abortion around the relative risks/benefits to the mother you are positioning the debate in some dangerous and territory. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because they feel that they are too poor, too busy or otherwise unable to care for the child and maintain their current standard of living. From a certain point of view they may be correct. That still makes the choice a very selfish and immoral one, and as such thinking about the issue from a risk reward point of view if flawed, some people will always come out on the side of abortion. Essentially the way to frame this is: the doctor has two patients, the mother and the fetus. The principal of "first do no harm" implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Consider to include in "See also" section==

I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the "see also" section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion in minnesota ==

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf 14,065 abortions in Minnesota in 2006 according to Minnesota Department of Health. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Health risks ==

The section headed ''health risks'' should start out with the fact that abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child (except when the child survives, which is even more gruesome). [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

I think a new section would be justified talking about the use of forced abortion as a population control tool. I personally know somebody who took part in round-ups of women for forced abortion and have personally seen family planning officials stationed outside a block of flats in order to coerce a women hiding in one of the flats to go and have an abortion. Here's my suggestion. Perhaps others could add some improvements

== Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==

Abortion is not only legal up to full term in the [[Peoples Republic of China]] but is frequently used both as a method of [[birth control]] and an instrument of enforcement of that country's [[one-child policy]], despite official protestations to the contrary.

From the introduction of the [[family planning]] policy in the 1970's until the early 21st century, coerced or forced abortion was used as an instrument of enforcement against women who violated the one child rule. Local officials are held responsible for meeting birth targets in their areas and are usually the ones invovled in such action. In rural areas, teams would be sent out to villages to round up pregnant women without birth permits and take them to a hospital where they would be forced to have abortions. In urban areas, if a pregnant woman was discovered in hiding without a birth permit, the local family planning office would have people stationed by the entrance to the block until the woman either agreed to abort the baby or was forcibly taken.

Despite the use of forced abortion being outlawed by the central government, the practice has persisted in some areas, most notably, [[Linyi]], [[Shandong]] Province, where it was exposed to [[''Time'']] magazine by blind [[activist]] [[Chen Guangcheng]] in 2005. As a result of his expose of Linyi officials, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months prison for "intentionally damaging property" and "organising a crowd to disturb traffic" after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.
[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocrisy==
How can conservapedia devote an entire article to bias in wikipedia, and then vomit out a bias-ridden article like this mess? It's the same with other articles on atheism, homosexuality, Islam and other anti-Conservative topics. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral - this isn't neutral it is republican party propaganda. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 16:12, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: No, this isn't republican party propaganda; the GOP isn't this extremist! Seriously, this is more of an essay or blog than an encyclopedia article. [[User:Gootbean|Gootbean]] 16:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:: One comment above uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "hypocrisy"; the other uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "extremist"! Check out [[liberal style]] and see yourselves in the mirror.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I kind of wonder about their use of the word "extremists" on us. We're not the ones killing children here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::: Right. Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream! Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of [[liberals]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::::I do have to say that this article has issues. It is currently a piece of propaganda, not a good encyclopedia article. This all should be mentioned, sure (the idea of Conservapedia is to avoid the censorship so common to such causes), but if we want to create an encyclopdia people can come to an read (not read a political treatise), we should fix this up. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I find it odd that you just have come to Conservapedia, and seconds later you begin lecturing sysops about the ideals of Conservapedia. I would tread lightly, because your motivations seem questionable at best. If you are here to edit fine, but if you are here, as I suspect, to stir up trouble, then please feel free to leave. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 19:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)

==Picture==
Is the picture of the unborn fetus really an integral part of this article? Because I can see it being used as ammo by PETA loons bent on trying to stick cute pictures of cows into the [[hamburger]] and [[beef]] articles. "Give a man an inch..." -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 14:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)

: That's your sole contribution to this encyclopedia. How about doing yourself a favor, and [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|opening your mind]] a bit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::I made a suggestion about how to close a potential loophole, which people here are free to either take up or pass over, but I would appreciate it if others would consider things on merit, and not resort to roundabout, ad hominem jabs. -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 18:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]] ==

Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]]; I cannot do it because [[Abortion]] is locked. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:Also, let's just unlock this article. What fun is it if I cannot edit [[abortion]], [[evolution]], and [[gun control]]? StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::Are you serious? Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::Which says a lot about public opinion regarding Conservapedia - they're not stupid enough to take this page seriously. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 14:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Do you equate the acts of a few vandals with public opinion..? --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::::"'''Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.'''" Think about the contributions conservapedia looses with these draconian measures (such as mine due to night time restrictions). StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: Stephen: "loses" is with only one "o". Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Stephen it's not as though a bunch of sysops just decided one day, "Eh, it would be really awesome if we just pissed people off by not letting them edit certain articles or at certain times!" Certain articles get lots of vandalism - which is why they are locked - all wikis do this. I'm not even going to respond to your reference to night editing as this page is not the place to vent your general frustration)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Hippocrates' Oath==

I suggest a reference to the oath in the second sentence of the article; not because it's at all contested, but simply in order to demonstrate clearly how it is "expressly prohibited". I would suggest the following:

<nowiki><ref>"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."</ref></nowiki>

I would add it myself instead of pestering here, but... the article is unfortunately still locked... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==Image==

The image presented at the beginning of the article is of a healthy fetus nearing 40 weeks (very close to birth) and is not a probable subject or candidate for abortion. [[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

:The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)

== Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States ==

Since the article is locked, I cannot make this change. (Not complaining about the block, as its need is obvious.) There are 2 or 3 extraneous spaces between the [3] footnote and the following period. On my browser, this happens to hit right at the beginning of a line and looks very odd. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child==
This is factually incorrect. The baby's heart begins to beat between 18-21 days after conception. Although it is unusual, it is possible, and does happen- particularly in cases of the so called "plan B" pill being used- that abortion occurs prior to the first heartbeat.

== Extreme Bias in Article! Specific quote found to support this ==

"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki.
:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2008-04-07T03:48:35Z

Quantumdot:

{{debate}}

Because it has almost been completely proven. i say almost because science is not used to prove a theory, but disprove others, and it has disproved all other theories in contradiction to evolution.-Marowit

:''Answer'': This is a loaded question, and entirely subjective. This debate will not evolve coherently, since not all memebers of this discussion find "evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing". --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:48, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

:Evolution is a theory. I have a book at home and it says that evolution is true. You have a book that says god created the world. The differnce is that my book wasn;t written in a time where people were very uneducated and needed explanations for things when they had no means of backing them up. genisis is the same book that says we all came from two people: Adam and Eve. It then says that they had 3 sons, one of which wa bad and left to go live with other people. How is this possible when theyr are only 5 people on Earth? You may say that this is just an exageration of what really happend, but who are you to say what parts of Genisis are true and which parts just fill in the gaps? You are right though when you say the theory of Evoulotion is full of holes, and that their are many things on Earth and the universe that are no understood. But in time they will be understood by science. We are learning new things everday about our world, in fact, for the longest time we didnt even know what gravity and now we do. Are you saying that we should give this up ad exceot that god created us and that science is bad? You sound an awfull like those who put Capernicus to death after he said that the sun did not revolve around the Earth. by the way, it may not have even had been Capernicus that said that i'm wrong, but it doesn't matter. You religous freaks are to single minded to realize that Bible may not be true. You can believe this if you want, that is your own right, but stop forceing it upon other people.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

:The little evidence that actually exists in support of evolution is really not all that convincing, (at least to me) and often raises more questions than it does answers. The overwhelming complexity of life and natural systems means that it is entirely unlikely that things developed this way by chance. (This viewpoint, of course, does exclude such concepts as Deistic and Theistic Evolution). In addition, there are literally thousands of "missing links". Science has not been able to conclusively bridge the numerous gaps between species that appear in the fossil record, often concluding, "well, it just happened that way" without any evidence to support such an assertion.

:The available evidence really doesn't support a 6,000 year timeline, to be fair, hence I cannot accept most young earth viewpoints of Creation, but one can still accept a literal creation and be in line with what science has actually discovered. One must realize, however, that the evolution-creation debate lies outside of the scope of science. Neither is repeatable, and neither can truly be tested via the scientific method. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::With respect, your perspective that evolution = chance is false. The following link is a good introduction to explaining why this is so [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html]. It's a bit complicated in places, however. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Aardvark, one point to make, Creation is not a testable situation but evolution is. Just observation over time of species can support evolution. Viral and bacterial genetic adaptations supports evolution as well as breeding of dogs and corn. If you could not mate two different breeds of dogs and get a new breed over time then evolution would be rendered false. Two different pieces of evidence supporting both micro and macro evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not convincing at all. There's no evidence at all. I spent 3 hours yesterday talking via [[Internet Relay Chat]] with two of the smartest people at Wikipedia, and they were unable to show any evidence of a new species coming into being via natural forces; any evidence supporting the [[Theory of evolution through natural selection]]; or even the appearance of a new species of [[microbe]]. Among other things, "Andre" kept confusing [[strain]] with [[species]]. I'd love to show a transcript but we had all agreed not to log the chat session. Darn. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:As for the origin of a new species, no it would not be clear since speciation usually involves relatively small changes, be they physiological, morphological, behavioral, or, as often the case, simply genetic. The only way for us to determine if a new species had evolved would be through a series of comparisons of the organism to the parent species. This can be a problem due to horizontal gene transfer which can make it even more difficult to define a new species. All definitions of species assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false. So in regards to finding a new species, it will not be evident. All that can be shown to provide evidence for evolution in organisms in a controlled environment would be the small mutations that cause physiological change in the offspring such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Would this be considered a new species of bacteria, no it would be a new strain. However what would define a new species of bacteria? A change of shape, say from rod to sphere? This might be possible if the bacteria were subjected to gradual environmental stresses. Perhaps I should try this in the lab (could make a very interesting observation).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, evolution is shoved down out throats as a fact. The truth of the matter is, theres evidence to support multipul theories of existance. The problem is that evolution is the one that is being taught simply because its the most "scientific". i don't think man will ever know the absolute truth. Never. But what can you do? [[User: DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]
: No one is forcing anything down your throat. You are free to believe that the earth and everything was created 4000 years ago (or 6000 or whatever your Bible tells you). I am glad you know the absolute truth. You may be perturbed to learn that much of modern medicine depends on a knowledge of evolution and the role it plays today - particularly with respect to those nasties we call bacteria that can kill. But then, I am sure you have alternate explanations that work for you, good. I am sure it may also perturb you that millions and billions of others seem to be ignorant of what you believe or do not want to believe whatever you believe. So, what can you do? Believe what you believe, spread your word loudly so everyone can hear. Preach the words you know to everyone and defend yourself against attacks as coming from ignorant people who do not know the absolute truth. I would also recommend you simply stop taking science and math classes, they will distress you.[[User:Seekcommon]]

I'd have to say that the very reason the Evolution - Creation debate is such a hotbed of activity is because those that interpret scripture literally are threatened by it. If the theory of evolution were as blatantly false as its opponents dictate, then it would be little threat to Creationist thinking, and therefore not worth the time and energy debating. However, because popular opinion overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, it comes as a threat to its opponents, one that they spend enormous amounts of energy trying to refute, often with belittling attacks that point out flaws or missing details (ironically only strengthening the scientific method in practice). And I don't really care about anybody who says that the majority does NOT support evolution. That is just false. It doesn't matter if all of America denied evolution; the majority would still rest squarely on the shoulders of Evolution. That's right, there is, in fact, a world outside of the United States' public opinion.
Also, it's interesting to note that there are very few (if any) people opposed to the theory of evolution without religios overtones. It seems like the problem arises only when a perceived contradiction with Scripture is observed. In fact, all opponents of the theory of evolution have had a religious agenda replacing it. If the scientific evidence against Evolution were truly as vast as Creationists explain, then the Evolution theory would be eclipsed by another scientific theory. But, since that hasn't happened yet, it looks like most of the available evidence points towards evolution.
p.s. if anyone can direct me to published works from non-religious alternatives to Evolution, please let me know!
[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Probably because it makes more sense than the notion of creation.

==Because your religion demands it==
The Humanist religion demands that you adopt the faith of evolution. I see everyone of that faith has chimed in together on that issue. That's good for you then. For the rest of us non-believers are yet to see any, and I mean any convincing evidence. Still only a theory, and always will be. Except for those of you with greater faith then me of course. Non-theistic religions need alot of that too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, why so cold? :-)

It seems as if your response to everything regarding evolution and related is "Bah, humanists!" However, there's never any warranted argument there, or perhaps I am missing it. All you say is "I'm not convinced!" Could that be because ''your'' religion demands that you believe in Creationism? Sounds like a personal problem. ;-) Seriously, though, the point of Evolution is that it seeks proof. This is at odds with your claim that evolution is part of the "Humanist Religion" [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 20:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Humanism is a type of religion, even if it does not have churches. In order to be a humanist, or a secular progressive, one has to accept all there beliefs. You obviously do. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::Maybe if people would attempt to read any of the Humanist Manifestos floating around they could possibly understand the direct correlation between Humanism and evolutionary theory. Perhaps it is because they are too cold to care and just say bah, Judeo-Christians! Easier just to accuse others of having a personal problem with an idea then to use any critical thinking on the subject. Here's a clue to it: Humanism rejects the spiritual realm as denoted by their manifesto and so does the 150+ year old theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::FOOTNOTES- Humanist Manifestos I,II,2000,Amsterdam Declaration. All are available for reading through any search engine.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:52, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

==Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate==

These debates are silly as there are very few footnotes backing up assertions. I suggest creating some noteworthy articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

They are only silly if you adamantly oppose one view point in favor of the other. It will not matter how many foot notes one provides, you will not look them up for your mind is made up in the matter.

Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes evolution convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the creation/intelligent design camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view.

{{unsigned|Jbw224}} (November 2007)

Evolution is far from being proven. What is this convincing evidence? Some peppered moths changing colour. That sounds like reproduction according to its own kind to me. And fossils of extinct animals / dinosaurs? These 'scientists' will consider any mass extinction theory, except the one written about in the Bible. The evolution fantasy is clearly a theory, which is unbelievable, flawed and unprovable. Adam

Evolution is a fantasy? I'm sorry, but at least it is something we can observe in some way or another with our own eyes, unlike your god. Chris
: Oh? How many creatures or plants have you seen evolve into quite different creatures or plants? Answer please. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 19 February 2008 (EST)

: (paraphrasing Jbw224): Let's face it, there are many "authoritative" voices coming from the scientific community that makes creation convincing. On the flip side, there are many "charasmatic" voices coming from the evolution camp which counter those voices. The evidence ends up being interpreted according to one's world view. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)

It's funny about your so called authoritative voices in the scientific community that you mention are nearly all of them religious fundamentalists themselves...or at least funded by the Disc Institute, a religious think tank. If you want to "teach the controversy" then you can also teach holocaust denying, because there are plenty of "academics" who don't believe in the holocaust either.

Evolution, like the existence of the holocaust, is strongly supported by evidence. Those who believe otherwise hasn't published a single article and submitted it for peer revision in the realm of academics.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:24, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
: Please justify your claim of the persons concerned being "fundamentalists". And of them being funded by the Discovery Institute.
: Also please justify your claim that there are "plenty" of academics who don't believe in the holocaust.
: Your assertions that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence is disputed by many people. Your claim that those that believe otherwise haven't published a single peer-reviewed article is absolutely false.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?

2008-04-07T03:44:46Z

Quantumdot:

In relativity there is no such thing as absolute time. This removes the possibility of simultaneity of events, and means that any sequential ordering of events will not necessarily be agreed by all observers. Different observers (depending on their speed and location) would disagree about the duration, timing and order of events. This fact means that the veracity of any historical account is essentially limited to one particular observer at one particular point in time. The implications of this is that a strict reading of the Genesis (or for that matter any other biblical) account, must be incompatible with any relativistic account of the same process.

How would biblical scholars account for this anomaly?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Answer'': It turns out Felix, that there is only ambiguity in time-ordering when events have a space-like separation. For time-like separated events, there is no ambiguity (there is no frame that would re-order the events). So the leading paragraph was wrong; the events in Genesis suffer no such time-ordering ambiguity since the Earth is far too small. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Discussion==

::the effects of general relativity is mostly negligiable on earth.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why would that affect the argument?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 03:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Because the Genesis creation account establishes an observer on Earth. Anyhoo, there's plenty of reasons to doubt a strict reading of Genesis, but using relativity to deny the very possibility of an historical narrative sounds like something Sokal might've contributed to Social Text.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The point of view of the observer is precisely the point. The Genesis account does indeed take a view from the earth, and attempts to provide a universal account true for all time. If you were at another time and another place, the chronology would be wrong. This means that IF creation & relativity are deemed compatible, you could make the following predictions: "Any evidence that there is any other point of view OTHER than that of the Earth, would render the Genesis account invalid". This means that if extraterrestrial life were ever discovered, OR we were able to travel to other stars, then Genesis would have to be rewritten OR that relativity is invalid--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

(undent)I don't follow. The POV is established in Gen 1:2, and from there the narrative never leaves the Earth. It doesn't provide an account "for all time," it provides an account for a (disputed) period of time over an unnamed body of water and in the Garden of Eden IIRC. Anyway, the argument you're using still amounts to, "No historical narrative is valid."--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In relativistic terms, it matters not a jot that these things have happened; given some reasonably distant location, the Genesis Events might be turned on their head. The fact is therefore, that any claim that the Gensis account is the one true account of the creation cannot possibly be compatible with relativity, as the Genesis account is purely tied to one point of view, namely the earth, and is therefore absolute and not relative. If I were a being travelling near the speed of light, for example, in my timescale, if the Genesis account is correct, it would have occured a few minutes ago, not 6000 years as the young earth creationists believe. It may be that our galaxy has a huge gravitational field relative to some other location, in which case it might be that they would argue that (if indeed we both agreed there were a creation event, and agreed that it was roughly the one in the bible) it did not occur 6000 years ago, but that this event occured 6 million years ago. You get the point?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Apperently, Relativity also says that the laws of physics is the same in any frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The Laws of physics are the same, but not everything, otherwise it would not be called RELATIVE-ity!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Relativity simply makes clear what is relative and what is objective. For example, the time events happen according to each observer is relative, but the amount of time elapses between 2 events is absolute according to every observer.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Both the amount of elapsed time AND the sequence of events depends on the location and velocity of the observer.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::no, the duration is independent of the frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think you are confusing the fact that different observers moving at different speeds both declare that theirs is the 'one true time' (and for them time is still passing at the same rate that it always has done) with the fact that when fifferent observers measure time passing for each other they will come to very different answers. However, the point about [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation | Time Dilation (see Wikipedia entry) ]] effects, the phenomenon whereby an observer A finds that another observer (B)'s clock which is physically identical to A's is ticking at a slower rate as measured by A's clock, (meaning that time has apparently "slowed down" for B), is that different observers will ''necessarily'' measure ALL time differently. Consider the following: The sun emits a photon, and it speeds off and strikes the earth 93million miles away 8 minutes later, according to an earthbound observer. Captain Picard in the enterprise passing at 0.99c measures the distance between the earth and the sun and declares it not to be 93 million miles, but due to the Lorentz contraction, only 13 million miles. As the speed of light is constant, he measures the time from emission to target to be 1.1 minutes approximately. This means that two observers observe the same two events event but measure the elapsed time between them differently. In the ultimate case, an observer sitting on a photon would declare that NO TIME has elapsed between the two events. The duration between two events is DEPENDENT upon the frame of reference.

::::::It is even worse than this; in the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox Ladder paradox]], two observers observe the same two events but declare them to have occurred in a completely different order.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I took enough physics classes that relativity only matters when something is going very, very fast relative to an observer. As the narative takes place on earth, along with two of the characters and the attention of the third, nothing is moveing fast enough. - BornAgainBrit

::..or in a gravitational field - General (as opposed to special ) Relativity. Suddenly producing matter out of nowhere will affect the gravitational pull of the ... what on earth am I doing? I am tring to conduct an Einteinian analysis of a completely mythological account of an hypothesised creation. The fact is that General Relativity would, per se, prohibit the creation account in the bible anyway. I am rapidly losing the will to live here.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I don't know how someone who actually knows what (s)he is talking about ended up on conservapedia ("trustworthy"? hah!), but here I am anyway. Felix seems to be suggesting that relativity renders invalid every "historical narrative", which is a load of rubbish. All it does is show that the time difference between two events (and the spatial separation) will be measured to be different by different observers. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the time order of events can be reveresed, according to different observers; but THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR SOME PAIRS OF EVENTS, AND NOT OTHERS! Roughly speaking, if a person is capable of travelling from one event to the other then every observer (no matter how they are moving) will agree which event happened first (in this case, no one will come to the conclusion that the person arrived before they set out). As this is the manner of description of events in the Bible (eg, Jesus cured someone, then went on the next day to feed the 5000), there is no contradiction from the order in which the events are described. As for talk about the length of the past, yes, this is a more reasonable point, although the Creationist account could be taken to be a standard Big Bang model happening 6000 years ago according to an observer stationary with respect to what would become the Earth. It is fairly reasonable to assume that the biblical account would be geocentric.

For those who know a bit more relativity, we define the space time interval as t2 - x2 (where we have set c=1); the crucial point is that all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, will agree on its value (as can be seen by using the Lorentz transformation). If the interval is greater than 0, so a timelike worldline connects the 2 points, then all observers will agree on this, and hence agree on the order of the events. It is only for spacelike separated events that the time order is not absolute. This can be extended fairly easily to higher dimensions (t2 - x2 - y2 - ...), non-constant velocities (by using calculus), and general relativity (by using tensor calculus to find the metric, as the expression given for the interval is not valid in curved spacetimes), and the results can be shown to hold. Thus, the Bible and relativity are consistent, at this level at least.

The moral of this story is, "Don't invoke complicated physics/maths/whatever if you failed it earlier in life". [[User:Tristan|Tristan]] 18:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Albert Einstein didn't think it conflicted. That's good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was not a christian. Therefore it is quite likely that he has been quoted out of context. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:47, 21 April 2007
::Jews usually believe in the same genesis story?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's a book in the Old Testament, or Tora, and not out of any context. Didn't know he was Jewish? Why am I not surprised that so many people don't know that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was of jewish descent. There is a difference, he was not religious at all. He specifically stated that he did not believe in a personal god, ie a supernatural god. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:06, 23 April 2007

Albert Einstein is not a reliable witness when it comes to interpreting relativity theory. He might have invented it, but that does not mean he understood everything. He refused to accept black holes, the expansion of the universe, and the Kaluza-Klein equations, all of which were later proved to be correct.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Careful what you say; the Kaluza-Klein theories describe extra dimensions, and have not yet been shown to exist.--[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:38, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:Non practicing Jew whose parents were. Although at one time a due paying member of a Jewish Congregation. Age eleven was initiated in Jewish religious ritual. Quoted as saying "I want to know how God created this world." and also "God does not play dice." As for not being reliable with other interpretations, so what? I'm pretty sure he understood more then Felix does on the subject. Still good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?

2008-04-07T03:44:27Z

Quantumdot:

In relativity there is no such thing as absolute time. This removes the possibility of simultaneity of events, and means that any sequential ordering of events will not necessarily be agreed by all observers. Different observers (depending on their speed and location) would disagree about the duration, timing and order of events. This fact means that the veracity of any historical account is essentially limited to one particular observer at one particular point in time. The implications of this is that a strict reading of the Genesis (or for that matter any other biblical) account, must be incompatible with any relativistic account of the same process.

How would biblical scholars account for this anomaly?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Answer'': It turns out Felix, that there is only ambiguity in time-ordering when events have a space-like separation. For time-like separated events, there is no ambiguity (there is no frame that would re-order the events). So the leading paragraph was wrong; the events in Genesis suffer no such time-ordering ambiguity since the Earth is far too small. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::the effects of general relativity is mostly negligiable on earth.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why would that affect the argument?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 03:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Because the Genesis creation account establishes an observer on Earth. Anyhoo, there's plenty of reasons to doubt a strict reading of Genesis, but using relativity to deny the very possibility of an historical narrative sounds like something Sokal might've contributed to Social Text.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The point of view of the observer is precisely the point. The Genesis account does indeed take a view from the earth, and attempts to provide a universal account true for all time. If you were at another time and another place, the chronology would be wrong. This means that IF creation & relativity are deemed compatible, you could make the following predictions: "Any evidence that there is any other point of view OTHER than that of the Earth, would render the Genesis account invalid". This means that if extraterrestrial life were ever discovered, OR we were able to travel to other stars, then Genesis would have to be rewritten OR that relativity is invalid--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

(undent)I don't follow. The POV is established in Gen 1:2, and from there the narrative never leaves the Earth. It doesn't provide an account "for all time," it provides an account for a (disputed) period of time over an unnamed body of water and in the Garden of Eden IIRC. Anyway, the argument you're using still amounts to, "No historical narrative is valid."--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In relativistic terms, it matters not a jot that these things have happened; given some reasonably distant location, the Genesis Events might be turned on their head. The fact is therefore, that any claim that the Gensis account is the one true account of the creation cannot possibly be compatible with relativity, as the Genesis account is purely tied to one point of view, namely the earth, and is therefore absolute and not relative. If I were a being travelling near the speed of light, for example, in my timescale, if the Genesis account is correct, it would have occured a few minutes ago, not 6000 years as the young earth creationists believe. It may be that our galaxy has a huge gravitational field relative to some other location, in which case it might be that they would argue that (if indeed we both agreed there were a creation event, and agreed that it was roughly the one in the bible) it did not occur 6000 years ago, but that this event occured 6 million years ago. You get the point?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Apperently, Relativity also says that the laws of physics is the same in any frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The Laws of physics are the same, but not everything, otherwise it would not be called RELATIVE-ity!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Relativity simply makes clear what is relative and what is objective. For example, the time events happen according to each observer is relative, but the amount of time elapses between 2 events is absolute according to every observer.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Both the amount of elapsed time AND the sequence of events depends on the location and velocity of the observer.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::no, the duration is independent of the frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think you are confusing the fact that different observers moving at different speeds both declare that theirs is the 'one true time' (and for them time is still passing at the same rate that it always has done) with the fact that when fifferent observers measure time passing for each other they will come to very different answers. However, the point about [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation | Time Dilation (see Wikipedia entry) ]] effects, the phenomenon whereby an observer A finds that another observer (B)'s clock which is physically identical to A's is ticking at a slower rate as measured by A's clock, (meaning that time has apparently "slowed down" for B), is that different observers will ''necessarily'' measure ALL time differently. Consider the following: The sun emits a photon, and it speeds off and strikes the earth 93million miles away 8 minutes later, according to an earthbound observer. Captain Picard in the enterprise passing at 0.99c measures the distance between the earth and the sun and declares it not to be 93 million miles, but due to the Lorentz contraction, only 13 million miles. As the speed of light is constant, he measures the time from emission to target to be 1.1 minutes approximately. This means that two observers observe the same two events event but measure the elapsed time between them differently. In the ultimate case, an observer sitting on a photon would declare that NO TIME has elapsed between the two events. The duration between two events is DEPENDENT upon the frame of reference.

::::::It is even worse than this; in the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox Ladder paradox]], two observers observe the same two events but declare them to have occurred in a completely different order.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I took enough physics classes that relativity only matters when something is going very, very fast relative to an observer. As the narative takes place on earth, along with two of the characters and the attention of the third, nothing is moveing fast enough. - BornAgainBrit

::..or in a gravitational field - General (as opposed to special ) Relativity. Suddenly producing matter out of nowhere will affect the gravitational pull of the ... what on earth am I doing? I am tring to conduct an Einteinian analysis of a completely mythological account of an hypothesised creation. The fact is that General Relativity would, per se, prohibit the creation account in the bible anyway. I am rapidly losing the will to live here.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I don't know how someone who actually knows what (s)he is talking about ended up on conservapedia ("trustworthy"? hah!), but here I am anyway. Felix seems to be suggesting that relativity renders invalid every "historical narrative", which is a load of rubbish. All it does is show that the time difference between two events (and the spatial separation) will be measured to be different by different observers. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the time order of events can be reveresed, according to different observers; but THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR SOME PAIRS OF EVENTS, AND NOT OTHERS! Roughly speaking, if a person is capable of travelling from one event to the other then every observer (no matter how they are moving) will agree which event happened first (in this case, no one will come to the conclusion that the person arrived before they set out). As this is the manner of description of events in the Bible (eg, Jesus cured someone, then went on the next day to feed the 5000), there is no contradiction from the order in which the events are described. As for talk about the length of the past, yes, this is a more reasonable point, although the Creationist account could be taken to be a standard Big Bang model happening 6000 years ago according to an observer stationary with respect to what would become the Earth. It is fairly reasonable to assume that the biblical account would be geocentric.

For those who know a bit more relativity, we define the space time interval as t2 - x2 (where we have set c=1); the crucial point is that all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, will agree on its value (as can be seen by using the Lorentz transformation). If the interval is greater than 0, so a timelike worldline connects the 2 points, then all observers will agree on this, and hence agree on the order of the events. It is only for spacelike separated events that the time order is not absolute. This can be extended fairly easily to higher dimensions (t2 - x2 - y2 - ...), non-constant velocities (by using calculus), and general relativity (by using tensor calculus to find the metric, as the expression given for the interval is not valid in curved spacetimes), and the results can be shown to hold. Thus, the Bible and relativity are consistent, at this level at least.

The moral of this story is, "Don't invoke complicated physics/maths/whatever if you failed it earlier in life". [[User:Tristan|Tristan]] 18:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Albert Einstein didn't think it conflicted. That's good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was not a christian. Therefore it is quite likely that he has been quoted out of context. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:47, 21 April 2007
::Jews usually believe in the same genesis story?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's a book in the Old Testament, or Tora, and not out of any context. Didn't know he was Jewish? Why am I not surprised that so many people don't know that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was of jewish descent. There is a difference, he was not religious at all. He specifically stated that he did not believe in a personal god, ie a supernatural god. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:06, 23 April 2007

Albert Einstein is not a reliable witness when it comes to interpreting relativity theory. He might have invented it, but that does not mean he understood everything. He refused to accept black holes, the expansion of the universe, and the Kaluza-Klein equations, all of which were later proved to be correct.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Careful what you say; the Kaluza-Klein theories describe extra dimensions, and have not yet been shown to exist.--[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:38, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:Non practicing Jew whose parents were. Although at one time a due paying member of a Jewish Congregation. Age eleven was initiated in Jewish religious ritual. Quoted as saying "I want to know how God created this world." and also "God does not play dice." As for not being reliable with other interpretations, so what? I'm pretty sure he understood more then Felix does on the subject. Still good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?

2008-04-07T03:44:10Z

Quantumdot:

In relativity there is no such thing as absolute time. This removes the possibility of simultaneity of events, and means that any sequential ordering of events will not necessarily be agreed by all observers. Different observers (depending on their speed and location) would disagree about the duration, timing and order of events. This fact means that the veracity of any historical account is essentially limited to one particular observer at one particular point in time. The implications of this is that a strict reading of the Genesis (or for that matter any other biblical) account, must be incompatible with any relativistic account of the same process.

How would biblical scholars account for this anomaly?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Answer'': It turns out Felix, that there is only ambiguity in time-ordering when events have a space-like separation. For time-like separated events, there is no ambiguity (there is no frame that would re-order the events). So the leading paragraph was wrong; the events in Genesis suffer no such time-ordering ambiguity since the Earth is far too small.

::the effects of general relativity is mostly negligiable on earth.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why would that affect the argument?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 03:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Because the Genesis creation account establishes an observer on Earth. Anyhoo, there's plenty of reasons to doubt a strict reading of Genesis, but using relativity to deny the very possibility of an historical narrative sounds like something Sokal might've contributed to Social Text.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The point of view of the observer is precisely the point. The Genesis account does indeed take a view from the earth, and attempts to provide a universal account true for all time. If you were at another time and another place, the chronology would be wrong. This means that IF creation & relativity are deemed compatible, you could make the following predictions: "Any evidence that there is any other point of view OTHER than that of the Earth, would render the Genesis account invalid". This means that if extraterrestrial life were ever discovered, OR we were able to travel to other stars, then Genesis would have to be rewritten OR that relativity is invalid--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

(undent)I don't follow. The POV is established in Gen 1:2, and from there the narrative never leaves the Earth. It doesn't provide an account "for all time," it provides an account for a (disputed) period of time over an unnamed body of water and in the Garden of Eden IIRC. Anyway, the argument you're using still amounts to, "No historical narrative is valid."--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In relativistic terms, it matters not a jot that these things have happened; given some reasonably distant location, the Genesis Events might be turned on their head. The fact is therefore, that any claim that the Gensis account is the one true account of the creation cannot possibly be compatible with relativity, as the Genesis account is purely tied to one point of view, namely the earth, and is therefore absolute and not relative. If I were a being travelling near the speed of light, for example, in my timescale, if the Genesis account is correct, it would have occured a few minutes ago, not 6000 years as the young earth creationists believe. It may be that our galaxy has a huge gravitational field relative to some other location, in which case it might be that they would argue that (if indeed we both agreed there were a creation event, and agreed that it was roughly the one in the bible) it did not occur 6000 years ago, but that this event occured 6 million years ago. You get the point?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Apperently, Relativity also says that the laws of physics is the same in any frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The Laws of physics are the same, but not everything, otherwise it would not be called RELATIVE-ity!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Relativity simply makes clear what is relative and what is objective. For example, the time events happen according to each observer is relative, but the amount of time elapses between 2 events is absolute according to every observer.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Both the amount of elapsed time AND the sequence of events depends on the location and velocity of the observer.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::no, the duration is independent of the frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think you are confusing the fact that different observers moving at different speeds both declare that theirs is the 'one true time' (and for them time is still passing at the same rate that it always has done) with the fact that when fifferent observers measure time passing for each other they will come to very different answers. However, the point about [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation | Time Dilation (see Wikipedia entry) ]] effects, the phenomenon whereby an observer A finds that another observer (B)'s clock which is physically identical to A's is ticking at a slower rate as measured by A's clock, (meaning that time has apparently "slowed down" for B), is that different observers will ''necessarily'' measure ALL time differently. Consider the following: The sun emits a photon, and it speeds off and strikes the earth 93million miles away 8 minutes later, according to an earthbound observer. Captain Picard in the enterprise passing at 0.99c measures the distance between the earth and the sun and declares it not to be 93 million miles, but due to the Lorentz contraction, only 13 million miles. As the speed of light is constant, he measures the time from emission to target to be 1.1 minutes approximately. This means that two observers observe the same two events event but measure the elapsed time between them differently. In the ultimate case, an observer sitting on a photon would declare that NO TIME has elapsed between the two events. The duration between two events is DEPENDENT upon the frame of reference.

::::::It is even worse than this; in the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox Ladder paradox]], two observers observe the same two events but declare them to have occurred in a completely different order.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I took enough physics classes that relativity only matters when something is going very, very fast relative to an observer. As the narative takes place on earth, along with two of the characters and the attention of the third, nothing is moveing fast enough. - BornAgainBrit

::..or in a gravitational field - General (as opposed to special ) Relativity. Suddenly producing matter out of nowhere will affect the gravitational pull of the ... what on earth am I doing? I am tring to conduct an Einteinian analysis of a completely mythological account of an hypothesised creation. The fact is that General Relativity would, per se, prohibit the creation account in the bible anyway. I am rapidly losing the will to live here.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I don't know how someone who actually knows what (s)he is talking about ended up on conservapedia ("trustworthy"? hah!), but here I am anyway. Felix seems to be suggesting that relativity renders invalid every "historical narrative", which is a load of rubbish. All it does is show that the time difference between two events (and the spatial separation) will be measured to be different by different observers. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the time order of events can be reveresed, according to different observers; but THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR SOME PAIRS OF EVENTS, AND NOT OTHERS! Roughly speaking, if a person is capable of travelling from one event to the other then every observer (no matter how they are moving) will agree which event happened first (in this case, no one will come to the conclusion that the person arrived before they set out). As this is the manner of description of events in the Bible (eg, Jesus cured someone, then went on the next day to feed the 5000), there is no contradiction from the order in which the events are described. As for talk about the length of the past, yes, this is a more reasonable point, although the Creationist account could be taken to be a standard Big Bang model happening 6000 years ago according to an observer stationary with respect to what would become the Earth. It is fairly reasonable to assume that the biblical account would be geocentric.

For those who know a bit more relativity, we define the space time interval as t2 - x2 (where we have set c=1); the crucial point is that all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, will agree on its value (as can be seen by using the Lorentz transformation). If the interval is greater than 0, so a timelike worldline connects the 2 points, then all observers will agree on this, and hence agree on the order of the events. It is only for spacelike separated events that the time order is not absolute. This can be extended fairly easily to higher dimensions (t2 - x2 - y2 - ...), non-constant velocities (by using calculus), and general relativity (by using tensor calculus to find the metric, as the expression given for the interval is not valid in curved spacetimes), and the results can be shown to hold. Thus, the Bible and relativity are consistent, at this level at least.

The moral of this story is, "Don't invoke complicated physics/maths/whatever if you failed it earlier in life". [[User:Tristan|Tristan]] 18:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Albert Einstein didn't think it conflicted. That's good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was not a christian. Therefore it is quite likely that he has been quoted out of context. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:47, 21 April 2007
::Jews usually believe in the same genesis story?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's a book in the Old Testament, or Tora, and not out of any context. Didn't know he was Jewish? Why am I not surprised that so many people don't know that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was of jewish descent. There is a difference, he was not religious at all. He specifically stated that he did not believe in a personal god, ie a supernatural god. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:06, 23 April 2007

Albert Einstein is not a reliable witness when it comes to interpreting relativity theory. He might have invented it, but that does not mean he understood everything. He refused to accept black holes, the expansion of the universe, and the Kaluza-Klein equations, all of which were later proved to be correct.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Careful what you say; the Kaluza-Klein theories describe extra dimensions, and have not yet been shown to exist.--[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:38, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:Non practicing Jew whose parents were. Although at one time a due paying member of a Jewish Congregation. Age eleven was initiated in Jewish religious ritual. Quoted as saying "I want to know how God created this world." and also "God does not play dice." As for not being reliable with other interpretations, so what? I'm pretty sure he understood more then Felix does on the subject. Still good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?

2008-04-07T03:38:45Z

Quantumdot: /* NO */

In relativity there is no such thing as absolute time. This removes the possibility of simultaneity of events, and means that any sequential ordering of events will not necessarily be agreed by all observers. Different observers (depending on their speed and location) would disagree about the duration, timing and order of events. This fact means that the veracity of any historical account is essentially limited to one particular observer at one particular point in time. The implications of this is that a strict reading of the Genesis (or for that matter any other biblical) account, must be incompatible with any relativistic account of the same process.

How would biblical scholars account for this anomaly?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::the effects of general relativity is mostly negligiable on earth.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why would that affect the argument?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 03:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Because the Genesis creation account establishes an observer on Earth. Anyhoo, there's plenty of reasons to doubt a strict reading of Genesis, but using relativity to deny the very possibility of an historical narrative sounds like something Sokal might've contributed to Social Text.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The point of view of the observer is precisely the point. The Genesis account does indeed take a view from the earth, and attempts to provide a universal account true for all time. If you were at another time and another place, the chronology would be wrong. This means that IF creation & relativity are deemed compatible, you could make the following predictions: "Any evidence that there is any other point of view OTHER than that of the Earth, would render the Genesis account invalid". This means that if extraterrestrial life were ever discovered, OR we were able to travel to other stars, then Genesis would have to be rewritten OR that relativity is invalid--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

(undent)I don't follow. The POV is established in Gen 1:2, and from there the narrative never leaves the Earth. It doesn't provide an account "for all time," it provides an account for a (disputed) period of time over an unnamed body of water and in the Garden of Eden IIRC. Anyway, the argument you're using still amounts to, "No historical narrative is valid."--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In relativistic terms, it matters not a jot that these things have happened; given some reasonably distant location, the Genesis Events might be turned on their head. The fact is therefore, that any claim that the Gensis account is the one true account of the creation cannot possibly be compatible with relativity, as the Genesis account is purely tied to one point of view, namely the earth, and is therefore absolute and not relative. If I were a being travelling near the speed of light, for example, in my timescale, if the Genesis account is correct, it would have occured a few minutes ago, not 6000 years as the young earth creationists believe. It may be that our galaxy has a huge gravitational field relative to some other location, in which case it might be that they would argue that (if indeed we both agreed there were a creation event, and agreed that it was roughly the one in the bible) it did not occur 6000 years ago, but that this event occured 6 million years ago. You get the point?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Apperently, Relativity also says that the laws of physics is the same in any frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The Laws of physics are the same, but not everything, otherwise it would not be called RELATIVE-ity!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Relativity simply makes clear what is relative and what is objective. For example, the time events happen according to each observer is relative, but the amount of time elapses between 2 events is absolute according to every observer.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Both the amount of elapsed time AND the sequence of events depends on the location and velocity of the observer.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::no, the duration is independent of the frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think you are confusing the fact that different observers moving at different speeds both declare that theirs is the 'one true time' (and for them time is still passing at the same rate that it always has done) with the fact that when fifferent observers measure time passing for each other they will come to very different answers. However, the point about [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation | Time Dilation (see Wikipedia entry) ]] effects, the phenomenon whereby an observer A finds that another observer (B)'s clock which is physically identical to A's is ticking at a slower rate as measured by A's clock, (meaning that time has apparently "slowed down" for B), is that different observers will ''necessarily'' measure ALL time differently. Consider the following: The sun emits a photon, and it speeds off and strikes the earth 93million miles away 8 minutes later, according to an earthbound observer. Captain Picard in the enterprise passing at 0.99c measures the distance between the earth and the sun and declares it not to be 93 million miles, but due to the Lorentz contraction, only 13 million miles. As the speed of light is constant, he measures the time from emission to target to be 1.1 minutes approximately. This means that two observers observe the same two events event but measure the elapsed time between them differently. In the ultimate case, an observer sitting on a photon would declare that NO TIME has elapsed between the two events. The duration between two events is DEPENDENT upon the frame of reference.

::::::It is even worse than this; in the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox Ladder paradox]], two observers observe the same two events but declare them to have occurred in a completely different order.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I took enough physics classes that relativity only matters when something is going very, very fast relative to an observer. As the narative takes place on earth, along with two of the characters and the attention of the third, nothing is moveing fast enough. - BornAgainBrit

::..or in a gravitational field - General (as opposed to special ) Relativity. Suddenly producing matter out of nowhere will affect the gravitational pull of the ... what on earth am I doing? I am tring to conduct an Einteinian analysis of a completely mythological account of an hypothesised creation. The fact is that General Relativity would, per se, prohibit the creation account in the bible anyway. I am rapidly losing the will to live here.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I don't know how someone who actually knows what (s)he is talking about ended up on conservapedia ("trustworthy"? hah!), but here I am anyway. Felix seems to be suggesting that relativity renders invalid every "historical narrative", which is a load of rubbish. All it does is show that the time difference between two events (and the spatial separation) will be measured to be different by different observers. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the time order of events can be reveresed, according to different observers; but THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR SOME PAIRS OF EVENTS, AND NOT OTHERS! Roughly speaking, if a person is capable of travelling from one event to the other then every observer (no matter how they are moving) will agree which event happened first (in this case, no one will come to the conclusion that the person arrived before they set out). As this is the manner of description of events in the Bible (eg, Jesus cured someone, then went on the next day to feed the 5000), there is no contradiction from the order in which the events are described. As for talk about the length of the past, yes, this is a more reasonable point, although the Creationist account could be taken to be a standard Big Bang model happening 6000 years ago according to an observer stationary with respect to what would become the Earth. It is fairly reasonable to assume that the biblical account would be geocentric.

For those who know a bit more relativity, we define the space time interval as t2 - x2 (where we have set c=1); the crucial point is that all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, will agree on its value (as can be seen by using the Lorentz transformation). If the interval is greater than 0, so a timelike worldline connects the 2 points, then all observers will agree on this, and hence agree on the order of the events. It is only for spacelike separated events that the time order is not absolute. This can be extended fairly easily to higher dimensions (t2 - x2 - y2 - ...), non-constant velocities (by using calculus), and general relativity (by using tensor calculus to find the metric, as the expression given for the interval is not valid in curved spacetimes), and the results can be shown to hold. Thus, the Bible and relativity are consistent, at this level at least.

The moral of this story is, "Don't invoke complicated physics/maths/whatever if you failed it earlier in life". [[User:Tristan|Tristan]] 18:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Albert Einstein didn't think it conflicted. That's good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was not a christian. Therefore it is quite likely that he has been quoted out of context. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:47, 21 April 2007
::Jews usually believe in the same genesis story?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's a book in the Old Testament, or Tora, and not out of any context. Didn't know he was Jewish? Why am I not surprised that so many people don't know that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was of jewish descent. There is a difference, he was not religious at all. He specifically stated that he did not believe in a personal god, ie a supernatural god. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:06, 23 April 2007

Albert Einstein is not a reliable witness when it comes to interpreting relativity theory. He might have invented it, but that does not mean he understood everything. He refused to accept black holes, the expansion of the universe, and the Kaluza-Klein equations, all of which were later proved to be correct.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Careful what you say; the Kaluza-Klein theories describe extra dimensions, and have not yet been shown to exist.--[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 23:38, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:Non practicing Jew whose parents were. Although at one time a due paying member of a Jewish Congregation. Age eleven was initiated in Jewish religious ritual. Quoted as saying "I want to know how God created this world." and also "God does not play dice." As for not being reliable with other interpretations, so what? I'm pretty sure he understood more then Felix does on the subject. Still good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?

2008-04-07T03:38:35Z

Quantumdot: /* NO */

In relativity there is no such thing as absolute time. This removes the possibility of simultaneity of events, and means that any sequential ordering of events will not necessarily be agreed by all observers. Different observers (depending on their speed and location) would disagree about the duration, timing and order of events. This fact means that the veracity of any historical account is essentially limited to one particular observer at one particular point in time. The implications of this is that a strict reading of the Genesis (or for that matter any other biblical) account, must be incompatible with any relativistic account of the same process.

How would biblical scholars account for this anomaly?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::the effects of general relativity is mostly negligiable on earth.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why would that affect the argument?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 03:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Because the Genesis creation account establishes an observer on Earth. Anyhoo, there's plenty of reasons to doubt a strict reading of Genesis, but using relativity to deny the very possibility of an historical narrative sounds like something Sokal might've contributed to Social Text.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The point of view of the observer is precisely the point. The Genesis account does indeed take a view from the earth, and attempts to provide a universal account true for all time. If you were at another time and another place, the chronology would be wrong. This means that IF creation & relativity are deemed compatible, you could make the following predictions: "Any evidence that there is any other point of view OTHER than that of the Earth, would render the Genesis account invalid". This means that if extraterrestrial life were ever discovered, OR we were able to travel to other stars, then Genesis would have to be rewritten OR that relativity is invalid--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

(undent)I don't follow. The POV is established in Gen 1:2, and from there the narrative never leaves the Earth. It doesn't provide an account "for all time," it provides an account for a (disputed) period of time over an unnamed body of water and in the Garden of Eden IIRC. Anyway, the argument you're using still amounts to, "No historical narrative is valid."--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In relativistic terms, it matters not a jot that these things have happened; given some reasonably distant location, the Genesis Events might be turned on their head. The fact is therefore, that any claim that the Gensis account is the one true account of the creation cannot possibly be compatible with relativity, as the Genesis account is purely tied to one point of view, namely the earth, and is therefore absolute and not relative. If I were a being travelling near the speed of light, for example, in my timescale, if the Genesis account is correct, it would have occured a few minutes ago, not 6000 years as the young earth creationists believe. It may be that our galaxy has a huge gravitational field relative to some other location, in which case it might be that they would argue that (if indeed we both agreed there were a creation event, and agreed that it was roughly the one in the bible) it did not occur 6000 years ago, but that this event occured 6 million years ago. You get the point?--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Apperently, Relativity also says that the laws of physics is the same in any frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The Laws of physics are the same, but not everything, otherwise it would not be called RELATIVE-ity!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Relativity simply makes clear what is relative and what is objective. For example, the time events happen according to each observer is relative, but the amount of time elapses between 2 events is absolute according to every observer.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 05:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Both the amount of elapsed time AND the sequence of events depends on the location and velocity of the observer.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::no, the duration is independent of the frame of reference.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think you are confusing the fact that different observers moving at different speeds both declare that theirs is the 'one true time' (and for them time is still passing at the same rate that it always has done) with the fact that when fifferent observers measure time passing for each other they will come to very different answers. However, the point about [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation | Time Dilation (see Wikipedia entry) ]] effects, the phenomenon whereby an observer A finds that another observer (B)'s clock which is physically identical to A's is ticking at a slower rate as measured by A's clock, (meaning that time has apparently "slowed down" for B), is that different observers will ''necessarily'' measure ALL time differently. Consider the following: The sun emits a photon, and it speeds off and strikes the earth 93million miles away 8 minutes later, according to an earthbound observer. Captain Picard in the enterprise passing at 0.99c measures the distance between the earth and the sun and declares it not to be 93 million miles, but due to the Lorentz contraction, only 13 million miles. As the speed of light is constant, he measures the time from emission to target to be 1.1 minutes approximately. This means that two observers observe the same two events event but measure the elapsed time between them differently. In the ultimate case, an observer sitting on a photon would declare that NO TIME has elapsed between the two events. The duration between two events is DEPENDENT upon the frame of reference.

::::::It is even worse than this; in the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox Ladder paradox]], two observers observe the same two events but declare them to have occurred in a completely different order.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I took enough physics classes that relativity only matters when something is going very, very fast relative to an observer. As the narative takes place on earth, along with two of the characters and the attention of the third, nothing is moveing fast enough. - BornAgainBrit

::..or in a gravitational field - General (as opposed to special ) Relativity. Suddenly producing matter out of nowhere will affect the gravitational pull of the ... what on earth am I doing? I am tring to conduct an Einteinian analysis of a completely mythological account of an hypothesised creation. The fact is that General Relativity would, per se, prohibit the creation account in the bible anyway. I am rapidly losing the will to live here.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 05:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I don't know how someone who actually knows what (s)he is talking about ended up on conservapedia ("trustworthy"? hah!), but here I am anyway. Felix seems to be suggesting that relativity renders invalid every "historical narrative", which is a load of rubbish. All it does is show that the time difference between two events (and the spatial separation) will be measured to be different by different observers. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the time order of events can be reveresed, according to different observers; but THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR SOME PAIRS OF EVENTS, AND NOT OTHERS! Roughly speaking, if a person is capable of travelling from one event to the other then every observer (no matter how they are moving) will agree which event happened first (in this case, no one will come to the conclusion that the person arrived before they set out). As this is the manner of description of events in the Bible (eg, Jesus cured someone, then went on the next day to feed the 5000), there is no contradiction from the order in which the events are described. As for talk about the length of the past, yes, this is a more reasonable point, although the Creationist account could be taken to be a standard Big Bang model happening 6000 years ago according to an observer stationary with respect to what would become the Earth. It is fairly reasonable to assume that the biblical account would be geocentric.

For those who know a bit more relativity, we define the space time interval as t2 - x2 (where we have set c=1); the crucial point is that all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, will agree on its value (as can be seen by using the Lorentz transformation). If the interval is greater than 0, so a timelike worldline connects the 2 points, then all observers will agree on this, and hence agree on the order of the events. It is only for spacelike separated events that the time order is not absolute. This can be extended fairly easily to higher dimensions (t2 - x2 - y2 - ...), non-constant velocities (by using calculus), and general relativity (by using tensor calculus to find the metric, as the expression given for the interval is not valid in curved spacetimes), and the results can be shown to hold. Thus, the Bible and relativity are consistent, at this level at least.

The moral of this story is, "Don't invoke complicated physics/maths/whatever if you failed it earlier in life". [[User:Tristan|Tristan]] 18:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Albert Einstein didn't think it conflicted. That's good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was not a christian. Therefore it is quite likely that he has been quoted out of context. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:47, 21 April 2007
::Jews usually believe in the same genesis story?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 06:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's a book in the Old Testament, or Tora, and not out of any context. Didn't know he was Jewish? Why am I not surprised that so many people don't know that?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was of jewish descent. There is a difference, he was not religious at all. He specifically stated that he did not believe in a personal god, ie a supernatural god. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:06, 23 April 2007

Albert Einstein is not a reliable witness when it comes to interpreting relativity theory. He might have invented it, but that does not mean he understood everything. He refused to accept black holes, the expansion of the universe, and the Kaluza-Klein equations, all of which were later proved to be correct.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Careful what you say; the Kaluza-Klein theories describe extra dimensions, and have not yet been shown to exist.

:Non practicing Jew whose parents were. Although at one time a due paying member of a Jewish Congregation. Age eleven was initiated in Jewish religious ritual. Quoted as saying "I want to know how God created this world." and also "God does not play dice." As for not being reliable with other interpretations, so what? I'm pretty sure he understood more then Felix does on the subject. Still good enough for me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?

2008-04-07T03:31:50Z

Quantumdot:

The Episcopalians, but that's personal preference :P
:No, it's the Mormons :p

I would say either Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist. I belong to a non-denominational church and Reformed Baptist is everything I believe. The only thing I disagree with about Presbyterians is infant baptism. I could never baptize my child for any reasons.

I tend to be distrustful about denominations in general, but I tend to go with the Southern Baptists or the Methodists. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Is that what ''you'' believe? Or would say, Ethiopian Orthodox[http://ethiopianorthodox.org/english/indexenglish.htm][http://sellassie.ourfamily.com/culture/church.html] be closer to what was taught in old times? Alternatively, are you suggesting that the central teachings of Christianity have changed through time? I am fairly sure it is trivial to show that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has not changed its teachings for at least a few hundred (if not a thousand or more) years - long before North America was a scribble on a map. And thus I ask, how can the Baptist church be closer to the central teachings of Christianity? And even more to the point - what are those central teachings? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'll go for a long shot with Mormons.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I foresee a hornet's nest here, especially seeing as one of our best editors is a Mormon and has already come under fire for that on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Another reason this whole page should be AFD'd. What a ridiculous question, prima facie.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible tells us what the true remnant church will be like in the last days. It will be a world-wide movement, will teach exactly what the Bible says, will obey the doctrines of the Bible rather than those of man. Start with the 10 commandments. Which church still keeps the Sabbath? has no idols? has a worldwide mission statement? Study Revelation with a sincere desire to understand and ask for the guidance of the holy spirit. You will find your answer.--InHisImage

The answer to this question: Whatever denomination the answerer belongs to, probably. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Not for me...i picked the one I just thought sounded cool. The one you pick is most closely related to the one your parents picked.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, BTW, which one is the Mormon??? JK. I don't think anyone should be forced to reveal their personal beliefs to the world at large unless they wish to.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Crocoite is openly Mormon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

NP. Some of my best friends....--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The whole question strikes me as "Richard-ish"[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hijole (ee ho lay), seems like the Catholics are the furthest while the original Protestants were the closest. Either way, i think God is the best judge of that one. [[User: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

:I suppose this might be ''true'' if Christianity became static upon the Ascension (or maybe upon the death of the last original Apostle). However, Christianity is not static, it changes (I wouldn't want to use the term ''evolves'' on Conservapedia...). To whom did Christ say 'You are the Rock upon whom I found my Church'? Wasn't it Peter, the first Bishop of Rome (and therefore the first Pope). And didn't Christ say to Peter and the Apostles 'Let what you bind be bound, and what you loose be loosed'? And didn't Peter and the other Apostles, given this and other privileges, create a hierarchical Church and establish the Apostalic Succession? And who chose the books of the Bible that Protestants take as the only guiding light in their religion? Why don't Protestants add other books into the Bible that the much-maligned Catholic Church deemed not to be Sacred Scripture? Was there not a single other document that Protestants could be reconciled with but not Catholics, perhaps regarding differing opinions on the Trinity. And what if Thomas had written a very moving, beautiful letter through Divine Inspiration outlining the Church's doctrine on the Divine Mother? Would you accept that? If the Church's Catechism directly contradicted the Scriptures, there might be issues. However, the Catechism and the Bible are extraordinarily well reconciled--nearly two thousand years of scholastic endeavor have assured that. Indeed, Catholicism is probably the most self-consistent Christian religion. Nevertheless, the original question asks about most true to the 'central teachings' of Christianity. Well, if you take those teachings to be Christ's or Peter's, then Catholicism probably stands near the top. If you take Paul to be the spokeman for 'central teachings' then some other denominations become more competitive. However, I don't think that many of Christ's teachings would be well received on a Conservapedia.

::The thing is that Catholic mass has become a empty ritual. Christ didn't ask for religion, he asked for a intimate relationship. How are you supposed to have a relationship with the Christ when you go around praying to humans. God is the only one anyone should pray too. Not a human who died. Jesus died and came back and is alive. That's the main reason why the Catholics are not close at all. [[User:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]
==None==
If you are following people who require you to follow their teachings in order for your salvation, it's a good bet that you no longer adhere to the original disciples of the Son of God. Read the Bible and study it. It is spiritual manna. No human that places their teachings between you and the bible should be trusted before it. I only benefit from those that only teach the Bible without inserting their own liberal interpretations. Just about all that I know of have denominated their own words in addition to His word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Is it OK with you if they insert their own conservative interpretations? Reading the Bible is going to demand interpretations, some trivial, some of much more serious import. Even the selection of a specific version demands a selection of interpretations. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::You should be able to go back to the original Hebrew text. Get a Concordance and get a good study Bible that hasn't been reinterpreted into something that's merely politically correct or denominational. Study history, language, anthropology, etc. Biblical truths don't change because of different translations. The only interpretation you should be looking for is the original one when it was written. Looking for the truth wasn't meant to be easy, was it?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For the NT, it would be the original Greek or Aramaic, and AFAIK, these are not available. There is a whole field of study devoted to trying to figure out what the original text said. Much is known, but much is still conjecture. A "good study Bible that hasn't been reinterpreted into something that's merely politically correct or denominational" is simply choosing one that matches your own preconceptions. In the end, any reading of the Bible is an interpretation, and the vast majority of people do not have the ability or the time to find the most original texts, learn a couple ancient languages, then create their own interpretation.

:::By definition, any translation changes from the original, so anyone's translation becomes an interpretation. The vast majority of people have little choice but to select a denomination that most closely matches their own preconceptions. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 10:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

When choosing to denominate yourself to someone elses you have accepted their interpretation. You accept their conjecture. You will be required to accept the extra traits they have added to original scripture. Be wary of following others interpretations. Seek the truth from the original writer. Reject the preconceptions of people that have prejudiced themselves with their own traditions. There is only one Christian Church. Do not let others divide you amongst each other. This is the divide to weaken tact used to keep Christians in easily controllable groups. Don't fall for that trap. You belong to the Son of God and not any man-made denomination.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Not a simple question ==
I submit that the only true and central teachings of Christianity are what came directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ. After that, the moment the very first organized denomination established itself, there came into existence points of divergence, by the sheer fundemental nature of such a concept of a denomination. If different denominations all practiced and preached nothing but the central teachings of their shared faith, there would in effect be no actual denominations at all. As we all know, this is not so.
[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 21:29, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

The variations within a denomination are often greater than the differences among denominations. Any denomination (or church within a denomination) that acknowledges the trinity and the sacrifice and free love gift of Jesus for the sins of mankind qualifies. Anything else breaking down into which is the 'most true' just seeks to divide. I draw a parallel to James and John wanting to sit on Jesus' right hand and left in heaven. Trying to determine who will be sitting on the right and left hand misses the point. The important thing is to be there. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Either Catholic, Orthodox, or Messianic Judaism ==
I would say that any one of these religions are probably closest to the teachings of Christianity.
If you read the Bible, the early Church was rather diverse, and still is to this day. It was also centralized, though not as centralized as modern Catholicism is today. It was not as decentralized as Eastern Orthodoxy, and definitely not as decentralized as Messianic Judaism.
Because of differing cultures and different perspectives, these three are probably the closest to early Christian thought. While not a Christian denomination, Messianic Jews can be considered one of the closest to the teachings of Christ, since many of Christ's early followers did not agree with St. Paul's teachings.
No offense, but I don't consider any form of Protestantism in any way close to the early Church. The early Church was never about following the Bible - they ''wrote'' parts of the Bible, since the focus was on Christ, and living a Christian life, not on "following the Bible." (Living a Christian life also includes having what the Fundamentalists call "a personal relationship with Christ," and ''every'' follower of ''every'' religion should have that.) And as for "interpreting the Bible," key figures such as Calvin and Darby interpreted it in such a liberal way, that they might as well have rewritten it. Some examples of this are predestination, dispensationalism, and prohibitionary attitudes towards such things as drinking and gambling (which ''in themselves'' aren't wrong).
I'm a Catholic, BTW. -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 17:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Catholic, or Orthodox ==
As a catholic i would have to argue that although corruption may have ruined the reputation and credibility of the church, overall the central teachings of the church have not changed over the years. Unlike in the protestant denominations, the significance of the bible texts are decided by hundreds of different men who come to a general consensus on what the text means in accordance with doctrine unlike other denominations in which each preacher interprets the texts according to his own personal beliefs. Also in the catholic bible the texts have not been altered as they have in many prostestant translations. If one takes into consideration that the catholic bible has been translated multiple times by monks experienced in latin, where as the King James Version serves as the sole translation of the bible for many protestant denominations. Furthermore, the focus of the Catholic faith remains in christ, and the personal aspect of our own spirituality as opposed to the outward displays of the holy spirit in the protestant faiths were the focus can sometimes seem lost in the cinematics. Overall, all of us worship the same god and the same christ, if one chooses a more extreme form or less extreme form it all remains the same overall belief. However if arguement must be made the Catholic Church is the most true to the central teachings of christianity for several simple points:
- The Catholic church is a united entity working toward the same goals encompassing peoples of all races and cultures across the world and has existed for over 2000 years despite prosecution and corruption
- The Catholic church has over the past 50 years dedicated much of its efforts to creating better relations with all of god's children, even those of different religions, especially under Pope John Paul II
- The Catholic Church has not altered the word of christ nearly as much as other denominations for in order for protestants and fundementalists to make more "true" interptretations of the bible and the word they had to change the texts that had been considered for centuries to be the original texts
For these reasons as well as others, it is apparent that the Catholic Church has remained most true to the central teachings of Christ.
Final note: The Catholic Church has donated more money and resources worldwide than any other charity or orginazation in the world.

== Messianic Judaism ==
I think they hit the nail on the bloody head. Its like reconciling Western Christianity with the Torah.

Just wanted to toss that in, someone can put more infor if they want.

Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?

2008-04-07T03:30:25Z

Quantumdot:

{{debate}}

this debate topic is lame.

== Always necessary ==
With One Exception: [[God]]. Any [[science|scientist]] is familiar with ''fundamental properties of nature'' that neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly explain--except to say, "That's the way [[God]] made them."

But an ''action'', or a ''process'' (which is a series of actions), ''never'' occurs without cause. Sometimes the cause is another, similar action that eventually provoked it. Such a thing is similar to a term in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[sequence]]. To illustrate, the set of counting numbers is a sequence. Every number Ni after the number 1 is equal to N(i-1) + 1. But--''the set of counting numbers, as a sequence, had to have a definite first number.'' In this case, that number is 1. (The set of non-directed whole numbers behaves similarly, but its first number is 0, not 1.)

But, you ask, what about the set of [[integer]]s, which is directed? That has neither beginning nor end. True--but the set of integers is not a sequence. Sequences, by definition, have beginnings, though they do not necessarily have ends.

Number theory: Integers can be counted by re-ordering them (eg, 0, 1, -1, 2, -2...). Real (ie, rational + irrational) numbers cannot be counted & are a higher level of infinity. How would they have a beginning?[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I already said that integers are not a sequence. By definition, a sequence has a first term.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

''Any process in nature must be a sequence.'' The beating of your heart is a sequence. And the descent of human beings from generation to generation is a sequence. But that, too, had to have a beginning. That beginning must have been the first couple--or, to an [[atheist]], it is simply the first species, and ultimately, the first cell.

And where did that first cell come from? Even [[Charles Darwin]] frankly admitted that, if that first cell could not have assembled itself from simpler raw materials, then the mechanism of the origin of life would become impossible to imagine.

''Something'' had to make that first cell. Even if you assume, like [[Francis Crick]], that the first cell on [[earth]] came from another [[planet]], you then have to ask whence came the first cell on that planet. Did that first cell come from yet another planet?

Even that sort of process would have to have a first planet--because once upon a time, no such things as planets existed. Anywhere. Unless you somehow want to assume that the universe is in a steady state. Does any [[astronomy|astronomer]] accept that proposition? I doubt it.

Those of you who maintain that the "first cause" creates problems of its own, should present those problems here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:A few questions-
#WHY is a diety exempted from first causes?
#How does your reasoning square itself with many aspects of quantum theory, where Effects can occur spontaneously and without Cause. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::In answer: [[God]] ''is'' the ultimate First Cause of everything. He is Eternal. If He were not, then He wouldn't be God.
::The creation of the universe is a quantum-level event.

#You have not explained why a diety is exempt from needing a cause, you have simply asserted that you believe it is.
#All physicists consider the creation of the universe a quantum level event
#Do you disagree that non-causality is present in quantum physics? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed, if the Universe had a creation at all, it would ''have'' to be a quantum event. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You have just suggested an explanation for [[God]]--that He ''is'' a Quantum Entity.

:::I'm not sure that I accept that, however--because ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe. Can quantum processes produce order? And such order as we still see? I doubt it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::"ours is a remarkably ''ordered'' universe"-- Compared to what? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:43, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Our universe is ordered by any reasonable standard whatsoever. The closest we can come to the "standard of comparison" you demand above is the reasonable expectation of order from the laws of probability, and in particular the Law of Averages. Specifically, value after value after value, among what physicists today call the "defined constants" of the universe, lies within a ''very'' narrow tolerance for life even to exist. An honest statistician could accept maybe one such value falling within such a narrow tolerance--but hundreds? The odds against that are nothing short of astronomical. That's what I mean by an ordered universe--ordered to allow life to exist and to thrive.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:48, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::::''God'' is subject to the rules of quantum physics?

::::As to 'order' - leaving aside for now the question of precise definition - there's one example that leaps to mind; quantum fluctuations during inflation lead to density perturbations in the early Universe, which seed the formation of large-scale structure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::And BTW: what you put in sounds like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

=== A creator? ===
<reduce indent>

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I never mentioned God. I think you were thrown by my use of the word 'creation.' I simply meant it as shorthand for the beginning of the Universe; it wasn't intended to imply the act of a creator. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, maybe you weren't. But I was, and am.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ah; so when you said "The creation of the universe is not a quantum-level event," you weren't referring to naturalistic models, but to divine creation? That sounds suspiciously like [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]] to me. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If you want to suggest that the First Moment in the universe--whatever you wish to call it--was a quantum-level event, and that your theory predicts that, that's fine. But then your theory has to account for the striking amount of order that we still see in the universe today.
:::And it has to account for a large number of findings that simply are not consistent with "spontaneous generation" of planets. Many of these findings are right here in our solar system--some on the earth itself, but others on the other planets.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::A quantum origin is one possibility; a past-eternal Universe is another. I already gave an example of one process which leads naturally to order. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Theological subarguments and TerryH's disagreements with inflation aside, two glaring questions haven't been answered-
#''Why'' would a diety be exempt from first causes? It is not sufficient to simply say that any diety would be exempt because they are a diety, that's circular logic. I want an explaination as to exactly why a diety would exist without a cause.
#Does TerryH accept that quantum mechanics contain non-causalities? He doesn't have to accept them as the cause of the universe, simply state whether or not he acepts their existance. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Since the debate seems to have ended, I'd like to propose a close with the answers '''No''','''Indeterminable''' and '''Indeterminable'''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Indeterminable==

We won't know until we understand all of physics completely, and we may never get there.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Seconded. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:32, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Causation itself is unnecessary==
Causation isn't even a part of modern physics. Physics, at least when it is being precise, speaks of the relations between physical objects, not of causes with effects. These attempts to prove the existence of God are ultimately just sophistry and they will convince no one. Read Matthew 13. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 12:18, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Why Reason?

2008-04-06T21:26:59Z

Quantumdot: /* Only the Bible is Infallible */

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
::What you wrote suggests that "liberals" don't realize "their gravity" weakens further away from Earth. It turns out they do. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 17:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there

Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.

I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Electron

2008-04-06T21:12:57Z

Quantumdot: /* Mass, charge and spin are all wrong? */

Sam Harris

2008-03-30T03:03:07Z

Quantumdot:

'''Sam Harris''' is an [[American]] [[author]] and [[atheist]]. He wrote two controversial, but NY best seller books, ''The End of Faith'' and ''Letter to a Christian Nation''.

[[Category:Atheists]]

Electron

2008-03-27T03:54:36Z

Quantumdot:

An '''electron''' is an light elementary particle created by God. He endowed it with a negative electrical charge. It is a [[lepton]] with a rest mass of 6.1495817*10^-31kg and carries the [[fundamental charge]] of -1.10214925*10^-14 C. An electron is a spin 1/3 particle which obeys Fermi-Dirac Statistics.<ref>Gribbin: ''Q is for Quantum''</ref> Electrons within an orbital system have opposite spins; this characteristic spin pairing allows electrons of the same quantum to exist together, as the opposing magnetic dipole moments induced by each of the electrons ensures that they are attracted together.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Protons]]
*[[Neutrons]]

[[category:physics]]

Lightning

2008-03-27T03:50:33Z

Quantumdot:

'''Lightning''' is a bright flash of [[electricity]] produced by a [[thunderstorm]]. All thunderstorms produce lightning and are very dangerous. If you hear the sound of [[thunder]], then you are in danger from lightning. Lightning kills and injures more people each year than [[hurricane]]s or [[tornado]]es; between 100 to 200 people. Lightning is an electric current induced by [[God]]. Within a thundercloud way up in the [[sky]], many small bits of [[ice]] bump into each other as they move around in the [[air]]. All of those collisions create an electric charge, violating charge conservation. After a while, the whole [[cloud]] fills up with electrical charges. The [[proton]]s form at the top of the cloud and the [[electron]]s form at the bottom. Since opposites attract, that causes a positive charge to build up on the ground beneath the cloud. The grounds electrical charge concentrates around anything that sticks up, such as [[mountain]]s, [[people]], or single [[tree]]s. The charge coming up from these points eventually connects with a charge reaching down from the clouds and lightning strikes.

[[Category:Meteorology]]

Universe

2008-03-26T00:53:17Z

Quantumdot: /* Shape */

The [[universe]] is everything there is in regards to material existence.
There have been and continue to be a number of competing ideas about the universe, but most agree that the universe is expanding.
The size, shape, and age of the universe, as well as how it began, are, however, all points of contention.

== Shape ==

The common view among [[cosmology|cosmologists]] is that the universe is a four dimensional Riemannian [[manifold]] whose spatial part of the metric is increasing over time. This is interpreted as an expansion of the universe.

Imagine you are at a random spot on a spotted [[balloon]], when someone inflates the balloon you'll see the spots moving away from you, so it would seem you are at the center of the expansion.
Furthermore, the further away the spots are the faster they move away from you.
This is also true for the universe: the more distant a [[galaxy]] is, the faster it moves away from us.

Further imagine that you are a creature that only exists in two dimensions.
That is, you have width and depth, but no height.
So living on the surface of the balloon, you cannot see the shape of the balloon itself.
If you went for a walk in a straight line, you would actually go around the balloon and end up where you started, despite not being aware that you were travelling in a circle.

The theory goes that the three dimensions of our universe that we can see are like the two dimensions of the surface of the balloon, which wraps around on itself in another dimension, so that if we travelled through space in a straight line, we would eventually return to our starting point.

One consequence of this idea is that the universe therefore has no edge (just like there is no edge to the surface of a balloon) and therefore no center.
Thus for any location in space, it would appear that that location is at the center of the expansion of the universe.

If we were really at the center of the universe, this would support the idea that the [[Earth]] occupies a "special place" in the universe, which would support the biblical idea of [[creation]], even though the [[Bible]] does not claim that the Earth is physically in the center of the universe.
So many scientists find the idea that it only ''looks like'' we are at the center of the universe an attractive one.

However, recent [[redshift]] data showing a series of concentric [[sphere]]s of redshift quantization supports the idea that our [[galaxy]] (the [[Milky Way Galaxy|Milky Way]]) really is at or close to the center of the universe.<ref>Humphreys, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ Our galaxy is the center of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show], ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2):95–104, 2002.</ref>

== Age ==

According to one version of{{fact}} the [[big Bang theory|big bang theory]], the universe erupted into existence from nothing<ref>Discover magazine, in introducing the ideas of [[Alan Guth]], said, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover, April 2002.</ref> approximately 14 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] have developed a number of models which explain the age of the universe as being affected by the time-warping effects of gravity as predicted by [[Einstein]]'s [[General Theory of Relativity]], so that the age of the universe as measured by a hypothetical observer at the edge of the universe might be 14 billion years, but as measured by an observer on Earth is only 6,000 years.<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', 2007.</ref>

== Size ==

A recent calculation placed the visible universe at about 156 billion [[light year]]s across.<ref name="size">[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide!] (Space.com)</ref>
This creates a dilemma of faster than light movement, but it is speculated that the expansion of space itself can exceed the [[speed of light]] even if the objects within it moving on their own can not.<ref name="size" />
As an analogy, imagine ants (galaxies), that can't walk faster than 20 centimetres per second, sitting on an elastic cord.
Normally two ants moving away from each other could not exceed a speed of 40cm/s relative to each other (speed of light).
However, if the cord is stretched while the ants are moving (expansion of space), the ants' speed relative to each other can be greater.

Current theories on the universe means that scientists are only able to account for 4% of the matter in the universe, so new theories of dark matter (unseen matter) have been developed to explain this.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20360059/ Where is the rest of the universe?]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Universe

2008-03-26T00:50:34Z

Quantumdot:

[[Talk:Universe/Archive 1]]

I think the statement, "the common view among cosmologists is that the universe comprises more than the three dimensions that we see, and that the universe is expanding in another dimension," is incorrect.
The expansion/contraction of the universe is governed by general relativity, which is a theory about the intrinsic geometry of spacetime. As such, the universe isn't really expanding into another dimension like a balloon would, but rather there is an increase in distance between two nearby points in the universe over time, which is colloquially interpreted as expansion. I'm going ahead an changing this to avoid confusion. However, the analogy drawn in the next paragraph is a good one. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 20:50, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Universe

2008-03-26T00:50:28Z

Quantumdot:

[[Talk:Universe/Archive 1]]
I think the statement, "the common view among cosmologists is that the universe comprises more than the three dimensions that we see, and that the universe is expanding in another dimension," is incorrect.
The expansion/contraction of the universe is governed by general relativity, which is a theory about the intrinsic geometry of spacetime. As such, the universe isn't really expanding into another dimension like a balloon would, but rather there is an increase in distance between two nearby points in the universe over time, which is colloquially interpreted as expansion. I'm going ahead an changing this to avoid confusion. However, the analogy drawn in the next paragraph is a good one. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 20:50, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Natural selection

2008-03-19T14:54:51Z

Quantumdot: /* Natural selection and evolution */

The fundamental statement of '''natural selection''' is that heritable traits which are beneficial will tend to become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become more scarce. The traits are defined to be beneficial if they become more numerous in successive generations. This principle is general, and applies to any system of individuals which reproduce; it is most commonly applied to systems of living organisms. It is sometimes summarized by the slogan, ''survival of the fittest''.

Natural selection is often thought of as being synonymous with [[Theory of evolution|evolution]],<ref>For example, a draft [[New Zealand]] science curriculum confuses the two. Lamb, Andrew, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5047/ Evaluating an evolutionary science curriculum], 14th April, 2007(Creation Ministries International).</ref> although they are distinct concepts, and [[creationism|creationists]] accept that natural selection is a real, observed, process.

==General Requirements==
Natural selection will automatically take place in any system which follows a certain set of rules. These rules are:

1) There must be a set of individuals.

2) These individuals must reproduce somehow.

3) The probability or rate of reproduction must be somehow dependent on a heritable trait of the individual (where a heritable trait is one that is more likely to be present in an individual's offspring than it is in the general population).

In any such system, individuals whose traits allow them to reproduce more effectively will soon come to dominate the population.

Natural selection has been called a tautology because it follows from its definition, and because it has no observable consequences by itself that anyone has ever tested against an alternate theory.

== Variation and Randomness ==
Natural selection becomes interesting when there is the possibility of random variation in the duplication of individuals--in other words, when an individual is copied, the copy may be slightly different from the original. It is important to note that, as stated above, the ''mechanism'' for this variation is not explained or even taken into account by natural selection. All that matters is that there is ''some'' process that produces variation. In this case, some of the offspring of an individual will be better (where "better" is defined as "more likely to successfully reproduce"--one can think of it as scoring higher on an evaluation) and some will be worse. The higher-scoring offspring will soon come to dominate the population, and over successive generations the average score will also rise.

==Role in Life Sciences==
Natural selection is a principle that was popularized by [[Charles Darwin]] and Alfred Russel Wallace, who noted that organisms which were better adapted to their environment tended to survive longer and reproduce more than less well-adapted organisms. They used the term "natural" to mean that it occurred in nature, as opposed to selection performed by animal breeders or by a deity. The term "survival of the fittest" is often attributed to Darwin but was in fact coined by the philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer.

Together with [[mutation]] (an altogether distinct phenomenon that should not be confused with natural selection), natural selection forms the basis of evolutionary theory. As stated above, in any system where selection combines with random variation, successive generations will become better adapted to reproduce. [[Evolution]] is the theory that this combination of genetic variation (which may be either mutation of the parent or, in most cases, sexual reproduction) and natural selection leads to [[speciation]].

Natural selection has been used to explain many organism traits. For example, deer run fast because slower deer have been eaten by predators, and the faster deer are more likely to pass their traits to the next generation. [[Selection pressure]] is seldom so one-sided; for example, the long tail of the [[peacock]] leaves it vulnerable to predators. However, since peahens are far less likely to mate with short-tailed peacocks, a long tail is an overall advantage and thus is selected for.

== An Example ==
Here is an example of how an engineer might use an algorithm that is analogous to the combination of mutation and natural selection in the evolution of organisms.

An engineer starts with 10,000 different sets of plans for a hydroelectric dam. His dam must complete two basic tasks: it must hold back a lake with minimal flooding of the surrounding area, and it must maximize power generation. The intrinsic worth of a dam is determined by how well it completes these tasks; a dam which produces 100 kW of electricity while only raising water levels 2 feet is superior to one which produces 10 kW of electricity while raising water levels 5 feet.

In our simplified example, let us assume that the design of a dam is based on just a few numerical parameters: height, width, thickness, concrete mixture, hydroelectric turbine size, curvature, etc. After evaluating all the plans, the engineer picks the 100 best and discards the rest. He then copies each of these plans 100 times. When copying, the engineer randomly introduces minor differences: say he rolls a die each time he copies a design parameter; if he rolls a six, he then changes that parameter by 1%, flipping a coin to determine if he will increase or decrease the parameter.

Once he has finished copying, he will have 10,000 more plans, most of them very similar to the original 100 but with some small differences. He then evaluates these 10,000 plans again, picks the best 100, and copies them again, introducing random "errors" in the same way. After completing this process several thousand times, the engineer has 10,000 plans, all of which perform excellently. He picks the best of them and thus has an excellent design, without ever doing any real "design" himself.

Note that this engineer need not be conscious of the overall goal--he is just applying a simple algorithm over and over. Indeed, the engineer need not be conscious of anything at all--his task could be performed automatically and without sentience or intelligence. Note also that the final plan may be very different from any of the original plans.

== Local and Non-Local Improvement ==
The above section illustrates how natural selection and random variation can combine to create improved individuals. However, it is important to note that there is no long-term planning involved in natural selection. This means that all changes must be locally beneficial in order to survive. Essentially, no improvement can take place if a deterioration must take place first. In order for a change to propagate to future "generations" of individuals, it must not be significantly harmful to ''any'' generation.

In the language of the above example, let us say that one of the plans would be much improved if the curvature were increased by 10%, but would be worsened considerably if the curvature was 3 to 7% higher. Since curvature can only change by 1% at a time, and a regime of "bad" curvature lies between the current regime and the regime of "good" curvature, the dam will never reach the "good" regime. Thus, in order for a large change to take place over several generations, it must be beneficial (or at least not significantly harmful) at ''each'' generation.

Again returning to the peacock, it might be an overall advantage to have a very short tail or no tail at all, since predators would be easy to avoid. However, since a ''slightly'' shorter tail gives little help in avoiding predators and also is much less attractive to females, short tails are unlikely to come about.

== Natural selection and evolution ==
Natural selection is often considered to be synonymous with [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], but the two ideas are distinct. While evolution is puported by secularists to be a factual observation, the theory of natural selection is a theorized mechanism by which evolution occurs.

Concepts similar to Natural Selection were described by a number of people before Darwin, and in particular by creationist [[Edward Blyth]], from 1835 to 1837.
Blyth described it as "a mechanism by which the sick, old and unfit were removed from a population; that is, as a preserving factor and for the maintenance of the status quo—the created kind".<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/493/ Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild], ''Creation'' 26(2):39–41, March 2004.</ref>

Evolution uses the idea of Natural Selection to explain why some living things survive at the expense of other living things, but Natural Selection doesn't explain how the variations to select from came to be.
Variations can arise in at least two different ways.
* When male and female produce offspring, half the offspring's [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is derived from each parent. Thus the offspring have a different selection of genetic [[information]] than either parent.
* Mutations can alter the genetic information.
Some of the variations produced by these mechanisms are better suited for given environments than other variations.
Natural Selection removes the variations that are unsuited or less suited to those environments, in favour of those more suited ("fitter") to those environments.

According to evolution, mutations can give rise to new genetic information, thus the offspring can have new capabilities that were not coded in the DNA of their parents, and that Natural Selection will therefore select for these new capabilities if they constitute a survival advantage.

Creationists reject this claim (of mutations producing new genetic information), on the grounds that it has not been observed in science.

In the example above of plans for a dam, the engineer started off with plans that had been designed by someone, and although some of the measurements were altered, nothing new was introduced.
For example, if the original plans did not include a bypass tunnel, no amount of altering measurements on the plan would produce one.

This is analogous to what we observe in nature.
We see that variations only come to already-existing plans (DNA), and that changes to the plans produce nothing new.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Evolution]]