https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Sersabian 2026-10-25T20:34:55Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special_Theory_of_Relativity&diff=157468 2007-05-12T17:43:52Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>The special theory of relativity is a paper published by Albert Einstein in 1905, originally titled The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. <br /> <br /> His theory stated that all motion must be considered relative to some object or system of objects. For instance, consider two planes are flying in a parrellel line. They are flying at the same speed, so relative to the earth, they are flying at three hundred miles per hour. Relative to each other, they are motionless. <br /> <br /> It also states that the measured speed of light in a vaccuum, no matter what the velocity of the of the light source relative to the observer, remains constant. For instance, consider a man throws a football at a horizontal velocity of 10 miles per hour, relative to us. If the man is on a platform moving in the same direction as the ball being thrown, at 5 miles per hour, then we would assume that the horizontal velocity of the ball after being thrown would be 10 plus 5, right? Einstein theorized that while it may seem that way when measured, in reality, it is immesurably less than 10 plus 5. So, when the football being thrown from a man at barely under 15 miles per hour changes to light being hurled from a distant planet at 300,000 kilometers per second, the difference becomes noticable. As the speed of the object being 'thrown' increases, the affect of the object it is being thrown from on the object thrown decreases. It reaches zero when a moving object reaches the speed of light. He theorized that no matter what the velocity of the source of light, the measured velocity of light will always be 300,000 kilometers per second, relative to us.<br /> <br /> Perhaps the most famous part of his special theory of relativity was his energy-mass equivelance. Up until this point, most people beleived in a newtonian universe, where mass and energy weren't related. But Einstein changed everyones veiws of the world, not only stating that energy and mass were related, but that they were equal. It was his energy-mass equivelance that gave us the famous equation ''e=mc&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;''. It also solved one of the mysteries of radiation. Before einstein's theory was applied, radioactive material seemed to generate endless amounts of energy from nowhere. Once they applied his theory, they looked for disappearing mass and found it. Although this may be einstein's most well known work by the general public, he did not win a nobel prize for it. In fact, he didn't win a nobel prize until 16 years later, for explaining the photoelectric effect.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special_Theory_of_Relativity&diff=157455 2007-05-12T17:37:44Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>The special theory of relativity is a paper published by Albert Einstein in 1905, originally titled The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. <br /> <br /> His theory stated that all motion must be considered relative to some object or system of objects. For instance, consider two planes are flying in a parrellel line. They are flying at the same speed, so relative to the earth, they are flying at three hundred miles per hour. Relative to each other, they are motionless. <br /> <br /> It also states that the measured speed of light in a vaccuum, no matter what the velocity of the of the light source relative to the observer, remains constant. For instance, consider a man throws a football at a horizontal velocity of 10 miles per hour, relative to us. If the man is on a platform moving in the same direction as the ball being thrown, at 5 miles per hour, then we would assume that the horizontal velocity of the ball after being thrown would be 10 plus 5, right? Einstein theorized that while it may seem that way when measured, in reality, it is immesurably less than 10 plus 5. So, when the football being thrown from a man at barely under 15 miles per hour changes to light being hurled from a distant planet at 300,000 kilometers per second, the difference becomes noticable. As the speed of the object being 'thrown' increases, the affect of the object it is being thrown from on the object thrown decreases. It reaches zero when a moving object reaches the speed of light. He theorized that no matter what the velocity of the source of light, the measured velocity of light will always be 300,000 kilometers per second, relative to us.<br /> <br /> Perhaps the most famous part of his special theory of relativity was his energy-mass equivelance. Up until this point, most people beleived in a newtonian universe, where mass and energy weren't related. But Einstein changed everyones veiws of the world, not only stating that energy and mass were related, but that they were equal. It was his energy-mass equivelance that gave us the famous equation ''e=mc&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;''.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special_Theory_of_Relativity&diff=157454 2007-05-12T17:37:21Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>The special theory of relativity is a paper published by Albert Einstein in 1905, originally titled The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. <br /> <br /> His theory stated that all motion must be considered relative to some object or system of objects. For instance, consider two planes are flying in a parrellel line. They are flying at the same speed, so relative to the earth, they are flying at three hundred miles per hour. Relative to each other, they are motionless. <br /> <br /> It also states that the measured speed of light in a vaccuum, no matter what the velocity of the of the light source relative to the observer, remains constant. For instance, consider a man throws a football at a horizontal velocity of 10 miles per hour, relative to us. If the man is on a platform moving in the same direction as the ball being thrown, at 5 miles per hour, then we would assume that the horizontal velocity of the ball after being thrown would be 10 plus 5, right? Einstein theorized that while it may seem that way when measured, in reality, it is immesurably less than 10 plus 5. So, when the football being thrown from a man at barely under 15 miles per hour changes to light being hurled from a distant planet at 300,000 kilometers per second, the difference becomes noticable. As the speed of the object being 'thrown' increases, the affect of the object it is being thrown from on the object thrown decreases. It reaches zero when a moving object reaches the speed of light. He theorized that no matter what the velocity of the source of light, the measured velocity of light will always be 300,000 kilometers per second, relative to us.<br /> <br /> Perhaps the most famous part of his special theory of relativity was his energy-mass equivelance. Up until this point, most people beleived in a newtonian universe, where mass and energy weren't related. But Einstein changed everyones veiws of the world, not only stating that energy and mass were related, but that they were equal. It was his energy-mass equivelance that gave us the famous equation ''e=mc&lt;small&gt;2&lt;/small&gt;''.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special_Theory_of_Relativity&diff=155061 2007-05-11T05:54:44Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>The special theory of relativity is a paper published by Albert Einstein in 1905, originally titled The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. <br /> <br /> His theory stated that all motion must be considered relative to some object or system of objects. For instance, consider two planes are flying in a parrellel line. They are flying at the same speed, so relative to the earth, they are flying at three hundred miles per hour. Relative to each other, they are motionless. <br /> <br /> It also states that the measured speed of light in a vaccuum, no matter what the velocity of the of the light source relative to the observer, remains constant. For instance, consider a man throws a football at a horizontal velocity of 10 miles per hour, relative to us. If the man is on a platform moving in the same direction as the ball being thrown, at 5 miles per hour, then we would assume that the horizontal velocity of the ball after being thrown would be 10 plus 5, right? Einstein theorized that while it may seem that way when measured, in reality, it is immesurably less than 10 plus 5. So, when the football being thrown from a man at barely under 15 miles per hour changes to light being hurled from a distant planet at 300,000 kilometers per second, the difference becomes noticable. As the speed of the object being 'thrown' increases, the affect of the object it is being thrown from on the object thrown decreases. It reaches zero when a moving object reaches the speed of light. He theorized that no matter what the velocity of the source of light, the measured velocity of light will always be 300,000 kilometers per second, relative to us.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Does_the_universe_include_everything,_or_does_something_outside_the_universe_exist%3F&diff=155017 2007-05-11T05:14:33Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>If the universe is defined as everything then of course anything which is not part of everything is outside the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> : The phrase &quot;being outside the universe&quot; is an oxymoron. The universe contains all of space. You can't be outside of something which contains every point that exists. It's a nonsensical idea. It's like &quot;whiter than white&quot;. Good poetry, bad logic. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 14:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I guess that was my point. It's just semantics and not a real question or a real answer. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Please see the entry on the [[Multiverse]]. If this debate is to begin to make sense, then it needs to incorporate current ideas on how &quot;the universe&quot; might actually be constituted.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Also, you might want to read up on the [[string theory]]. This theory states that there are twelve dimensions, and MANY universes. It also has a pretty good explanation of the big bang.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 01:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Battle_of_Thermopylae&diff=151610 2007-05-09T18:07:20Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>The '''Battle of Thermopylae''' was a famous battle during the [[Greco-Persian Wars]], fought in north western greece. It is known for the fact that 300 [[Sparta|Spartan]] soldiers and 7000 other Greek soldiers (most notably the [[Thespiae|Thespians]]) held off an army of several hundred thousand [[Persia|Persian]] soldiers (led by [[Xerxes]]) for three days, therefore giving the rest of Greece time to group and prepare to the south. It was considered to be a defining moment in the war.<br /> <br /> == Greek/Persian ==<br /> <br /> The battle of Thermopylae was fought between the Greeks and the Persians in 480 BC. The Persian &quot;God king&quot; Xerxes, master of the huge Persian Empire, was waging war on Greece for control of its lands and people. The battle is most known for two factors: 1) the impressive show of strength by the Persians, whose forces numbered between 200,000 to 2 million 2) the determination and bravery of the few thousand Greeks who tried to stop them. The estimated 6700 Non-Spartan Greeks ([[Athens|Athenians]] and soldiers from other city-states) were led by the Spartan king [[Leonidas]]. The Spartans themselves numbered a few hundred. <br /> <br /> The Greek soldiers were able to successfully hold off the Persians because of the terrain and their fighting style. Because the mountain pass was so narrow at the location they had chosen to fight, the Greeks only had to face a small number of the Persian army at a time. Also, the Greek [[phalanx]], a fighting style consisting of ten rows and ten columns of soldiers carrying twelve foot long spears and rounded shields gave the Greeks a huge advantage. This fighting style was so effective because the tight formation and shields left practically no part of a soldier unprotected, and the twelve foot long spears enabled men from a few rows back to attack. It was also effective because when a Greek soldier died on the front line, he was immediately replaced by a new soldier. After two days of battle in which the Persians were unable to advance, a traitorous Greek farmer named [[Ephialtes of Trachis|Ephialtes]] told the Persians of a secret path that let the Persians get around and attack the Greeks from behind. 300 Spartans and 700 [[Thespians stayed]], while the Athenians left to gather more forces, and the impressive last stand allowed Sparta and Athens to regroup and eventually defeat the Persian forces in the [[Battle of Platea]]. It is estimated that 20,000 Persians were killed by the Greeks. The traitor Ephialtes is so derided in [[Greek]] tradition, that his name is now a synonym for &quot;nightmare.&quot;<br /> <br /> The battle of Thermopylae was considered to be a key battle in preventing the overrunning of Western civilization by Eastern invaders.<br /> <br /> A movie was made about this battle in 2007 named &quot;300&quot;. However, the movie was based upon the highly-stylized graphic novel by Frank Miller and so mixes historical fact with historical fiction.<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Alexander the Great]]<br /> *[[Julius Caesar]]<br /> *[[The Crusades]]<br /> *[[Byzantine Empire]]<br /> <br /> == Source ==<br /> <br /> Cartledge, Paul, Thermopylae; the Battle that Changed the World, Overlook Press, New York, 2006<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Thermopylae, Battle of}}<br /> [[Category:Battles]]<br /> [[Category:Ancient Greece]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Polypeptides&diff=150513 2007-05-09T02:43:57Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: A polypeptide is a molecule made up of multiple amino acids connected by peptide bonds. Polypeptides are made through transcription and translation. In transcription, an [[...</p> <hr /> <div>A polypeptide is a molecule made up of multiple [[amino acids]] connected by [[peptide bonds]]. Polypeptides are made through [[transcription]] and [[translation]]. In transcription, an [[enzyme]] forces the [[double helix]] of the DNA to unwind, and split in half. Then, the [[bases]] of the [[DNA]] are paired with their opposite, free floating bases. This creates a new helix, and it splits in half, leaving the original DNA, and a new half string, called messenger [[RNA]], or [[mRNA]]. The mRNA leaves the [[nucleus]], and binds with [[ribosomes]]. These ribosomes &quot;read&quot; the mRNA, and every three bases, it connects an amino acid, building a polypeptide chain.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Brazil&diff=150441 2007-05-09T02:14:30Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>{{stub}}<br /> <br /> == Geography ==<br /> Located in [[South America]]&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html CIA World Factbook]&lt;/ref&gt;, '''Brazil''' has the third largest area among American countries and the second largest population&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.brasil.gov.br/ingles/about_brazil Brazilian Government Web Portal]&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> == Government ==<br /> It is currently governed by the leftist ''Partido dos Trabalhadores'' (Worker's Party)&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.pt.org.br PT - Partido dos Trabalhadores]&lt;/ref&gt;, a founding member of the ''Foro de São Paulo'' ([[Sao Paulo Forum]])&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.forosaopaulo.org Foro de SP]&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> It has 26 states and 1 federal district*; [[Acre]], [[Alagoas]], [[Amapa]], [[Amazonas]], [[Bahia]], [[Ceara]], [[Distrito Federal]]*, [[Espirito Santo]], [[Goias]], [[Maranhao]], [[Mato Grosso]], [[Mato Grosso do Sul]], [[Minas Gerais]], [[Para]], [[Paraiba]], [[Parana]], [[Pernambuco]], [[Piaui]], [[Rio de Janeiro]], [[Rio Grande do Norte]], [[Rio Grande do Sul]], [[Rondonia]], [[Roraima]], [[Santa Catarina]], [[Sao Paulo]], [[Sergipe]], and [[Tocantins]].<br /> <br /> == Economy ==<br /> <br /> == Footnotes ==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:South American Countries]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Special_Theory_of_Relativity&diff=150145 2007-05-08T22:41:07Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: I'm sure there is quite a few errors, but i will continue to work on it, so try not to be too judgmental:)--~~~~</p> <hr /> <div>I'm sure there is quite a few errors, but i will continue to work on it, so try not to be too judgmental:)--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 18:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special_Theory_of_Relativity&diff=150137 2007-05-08T22:40:01Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: The special theory of relativity is a paper published by Albert Einstein in 1905, originally titled The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. His theory stated that all motion must be consid...</p> <hr /> <div>The special theory of relativity is a paper published by Albert Einstein in 1905, originally titled The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. <br /> <br /> His theory stated that all motion must be considered relative to some object or system of objects. For instance, consider two planes are flying in a parrellel line. They are flying at the same speed, so relative to the earth, they are flying at three hundred miles per hour. Relative to each other, they are motionless. <br /> <br /> It also states that the measured speed of light in a vaccuum, no matter what the velocity of the of the light source relative to the observer, remains constant. For instance, consider a man throws a football at a horizontal velocity of 10 miles per hour, relative to us. If the man is on a platform moving in the same direction as the ball being thrown, at 5 miles per hour, then we would assume that the horizontal velocity of the ball after being thrown would be 10 plus 5, right? Einstein theorized that while it may seem that way when measured, in reality, it is immesurably less than 10 plus 5. So, when the football being thrown from a man at barely under 15 miles per hour changes to light being hurled from a distant planet at 300,000 kilometers per second, the difference becomes noticable. As the speed of the object being 'thrown' increases, the affect of the object it is being thrown from on the object thrown decreases. It reaches zero when a moving object reaches the speed of light. He theorized that no matter what the velocity of the source of light, the light will always travel at 300,000 kilometers per second, relative to us.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Treaty&diff=150011 2007-05-08T21:45:54Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: A treaty is a written agreement between two states or sovereigns.</p> <hr /> <div>A treaty is a written agreement between two states or sovereigns.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Battle_of_Thermopylae&diff=135240 2007-04-29T18:47:01Z

<p>Sersabian: i explained the greek fighting style and why it was effective</p> <hr /> <div>{{move|Battle of Thermopylae}}<br /> <br /> The '''Battle of Thermopylae''' was a famous battle during the [[Greco-Persian Wars]]. It is known for the fact that 300 [[Sparta|Spartan]] soldiers and 7000 other Greek soldiers (most notably the [[Thespiae|Thespians]]) held off an army of several hundred thousand [[Persia|Persian]] soldiers (led by [[Xerxes]]) for three days.<br /> <br /> == Greek/Persian ==<br /> <br /> The most recognized battle of Thermopylae was that of the Greeks and Persians around 480 BC. The Persian &quot;God&quot; king Xerxes was waging war on Greece for control of its lands and people. The battle is most known for the impressive show of strength by the Persians, whose forces numbered between 2 million and 200,000. The battle is also known for the determination and bravery of the roughly 7000 Greeks. The estimated 6700 Athenians (and soldiers from other city-states) were led by the Spartan king Leonidas. The greek soldiers were able to successfully hold off the persians because of the terrain and their fighting style. Because the mountain pass was so narrow, the greeks only had to fight a small number of the persian army at a time. Also, the greek phalanx, a fighting style consisting of ten rows and ten columns of soldiers carrying twelve foot long spears and rounded sheilds gave the greeks a huge advantage. This fighting style was so effective because the tight formation and sheilds left practically no part of a soldier unprotected, and the twelve foot long spears enabled men from a few rows back to attack. It was also effective because when a greek soldier died on the front line, he was immediately replaced by a new soldier. After two days of battle, a traitorous Greek farmer named [[Ephialtes of Trachis|Ephialtes]] told the Persians of a secret path that let the Persians get around and attack the Spartans from behind. 300 Spartans stayed, while the Athenians left to gather more forces, and the impressive last stand by the Spartans allowed Sparta and Athens to regroup and eventually defeat the Persian forces in a later battle. It is also estimated that 20000 Persians were killed by the allied force. The traitor [[Ephialtes of Trachis|Ephialtes]] is so derided in [[Greek]] tradition, that his name is now a synonym for &quot;nightmare.&quot;<br /> <br /> A movie was made about this battle in 2007 named &quot;300&quot;. However, the movie was based upon the highly-stylized graphic novel by Frank Miller and not upon historical fact.<br /> <br /> == Source ==<br /> <br /> Cartledge, Paul, Thermopylae; the Battle that Changed the World, Overlook Press, New York, 2006<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Thermopylae, Battle of}}<br /> [[Category:Battles]]<br /> [[Category:Ancient Greece]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Refraction&diff=128016 2007-04-26T03:47:29Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: Refraction is the change in direction of light when moving from one medium to another.</p> <hr /> <div>Refraction is the change in direction of light when moving from one medium to another.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hibernation&diff=79747 2007-04-01T17:55:38Z

<p>Sersabian: spelling</p> <hr /> <div>'''Hibernation''' is a behaviour of certain animals, particularly in cold climates, of entering a prolonged physically inactive state of lowered metabolic activity, as a means of coping with the vicissitudes of [[winter]]. While many animals will sleep more than usual during the winter, true hibernation involves dramatically reduced heartrates and body temperatures, generally over a single unbroken period of torpor.<br /> <br /> Animals that hibernate include [[bear]]s, the [[dormouse]], the [[hedgehog]], and many types of [[reptile]]s and [[amphibian]]s.<br /> <br /> Most [[bird]]s use [[migration]] to avoid harsh seasonal conditions; the common poorwill, a type of [[nightjar]], is the only bird known to hibernate. Historically, [[swallow]]s were believed to hibernate at the bottom of ponds.<br /> <br /> Animals which become inactive in summer are said to [[Aestivation|aestivate]].<br /> <br /> [[Category:Biology]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Violin&diff=78499 2007-04-01T01:54:43Z

<p>Sersabian: grammar</p> <hr /> <div>The '''violin''' is the highest pitched [[String Instruments]] used in [[western orchestra]]. Composers often give it the melody in [[classical]] works. It has four strings and is tuned from high to low: E A D G. Sometimes alternative tunings are used, especially in traditional music.<br /> The instrument developed in the mid 1500s, in what is now called Italy. The most famous makers of violins include G.P. Maggini (1580-1632), the Amati family of Cremona, the Guarnari family of Venice, Antonio Stradivari, and Jacob Stainer of the Austrian Tyrol. Almost all new violins are made to follow the patterns of these old masters, although some adaptations have been made to support the metal strings and higher pitches of modern performance.<br /> Famous violinists incude Nicolo Paganini, Jascha Heifetz, Sir Yehudi Menuhin, Itzhak Perlman, Isaac Stern, Joshua Bell, and Nigel Kennedy.<br /> <br /> The violin is also used in folk and popular music and is traditionally called a [[fiddle]]. It is just as valid a name as &quot;violin;&quot; in fact both words have a common origin: both derived from the Latin ''vitula,'' by separate paths.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cello.org/Newsletter/Articles/celloetymology.htm The Etymology of the Words Violin and Cello]&lt;/ref&gt; Because it is often used to accompany dance, it gained the nickname 'the devil's instrument'. In fact, the violin has always been used for both sacred and secular music. It has spread throughout the world and everywhere it goes it is adapted to the local musical styles.<br /> <br /> Traditionally, violin strings were made of ''catgut,'' and many still are, although synthetic substitutes are also used. Catgut is an extremely tough string which is indeed made from the intestines&amp;mdash;but of sheep, not cats. The explanation of the &quot;cat&quot; in the word is not clear.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Musical Instrument]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plutonium_Bomb&diff=78452 2007-04-01T01:09:28Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>The plutonium bomb, or &quot;fat man&quot;, was the second and largest [[atomic bomb]] to be dropped during [[World War II]]. It was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on the morning of August 9, 1945, and even though it missed its target by two and a half miles, it still managed to kill an estimated 70,000-100,000 over the course of a year. <br /> <br /> Because it isn't found abundantly in nature, the isotope used in making atomic bombs, Plutonium-239, is made in laboratories. It is made from uranium-238 using a [[breeder reactor]]. There are two laboratories in the United States that manufacture Pu-239; they are located in Savannah River Plant, [[South Carolina]], and Hanford, [[Washington]]. This bomb was first made after the United States discovered that Germany was trying to build atomic weapons, and started research of their own. This bomb consists of a small subatomic sphere of Pu-239 surounded by a [[tamper]]. A tamper is a dense material, in this case U-238 or beryllium, depending on the bomb, that keeps the neutrons from escaping until the explosion occurs. Surounding the tamper are &quot;conventional explosives&quot;. This explosion is possible because Pu-239 is an unstable isotope of plutonium, also called a radioactive isotope. [[Radioactive]] refers to the energy and extra neutrons being constantly released by the plutonium. They are released because the plutonium is unstable, and the nucleus is constantly about to fall apart, or decay. When it decays, it splits into two smaller and more stable atoms, releasing uneeded energy and neutrons. Normally, the energy and neutrons can escape, and no explosion occurs. However, when the conventional explosives are detonated, they force the plutonium into a densly packed sphere. The tamper holds the plutonium in this dense state, and now when the neutrons are released, they can't go anywhere without hitting another atom and causing it to split. This chain reaction occurs in a split second, and eventually the released energy causes an explosion.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plutonium_Bomb&diff=78450 2007-04-01T01:08:31Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>The plutonium bomb, or &quot;fat man&quot;, was the second and largest [[atomic bomb]] to be dropped during [[World War II]]. It was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on the morning of August 9, 1945, and even though it missed its target by two and a half miles, it still managed to kill an estimated 70,000-100,000 over the course of a year. <br /> <br /> Because it isn't found abundantly in nature, the isotope used in making atomic bombs, Plutonium-239, is made in laboratories. It is made from uranium-238 using a [[breeder reactor]]. There are two laboratories in the United States that manufacture Pu-239; they are located in Savannah River Plant, South Carolina, and Hanford, Washington. This bomb was first made after the United States discovered that Germany was trying to build atomic weapons, and started research of their own. This bomb consists of a small subatomic sphere of Pu-239 surounded by a tamper. A tamper is a dense material, in this case U-238 or beryllium, depending on the bomb, that keeps the neutrons from escaping until the explosion occurs. Surounding the tamper are &quot;conventional explosives&quot;. This explosion is possible because Pu-239 is an unstable isotope of plutonium, also called a radioactive isotope. Radioactive refers to the energy and extra neutrons being constantly released by the plutonium. They are released because the plutonium is unstable, and the nucleus is constantly about to fall apart, or decay. When it decays, it splits into two smaller and more stable atoms, releasing uneeded energy and neutrons. Normally, the energy and neutrons can escape, and no explosion occurs. However, when the conventional explosives are detonated, they force the plutonium into a densly packed sphere. The tamper holds the plutonium in this dense state, and now when the neutrons are released, they can't go anywhere without hitting another atom and causing it to split. This chain reaction occurs in a split second, and eventually the released energy causes an explosion.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plutonium_Bomb&diff=78239 2007-03-31T23:16:17Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>The plutonium bomb, or &quot;fat man&quot;, was the second and largest [[atomic bomb]] to be dropped during [[World War II]]. Because it isn't found abundantly in nature, the isotope used in making atomic bombs, Plutonium-239, is made in laboratories. It is made from uranium-238 using a [[breeder reactor]]. There are two laboratories in the United States that manufacture Pu-239; they are located in Savannah River Plant, South Carolina, and Hanford, Washington. This bomb was first made after the United States discovered that Germany was trying to build atomic weapons, and started research of their own. This bomb consists of a small sphere of Pu-239 surounded by &quot;conventional explosives&quot;, and surounding these conventional explosives was a tamper. a tamper is a dense material, in this case U-238, that keeps the neutrons and atoms from escaping until the explosion occurs.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Plutonium_Bomb&diff=78047 2007-03-31T22:10:46Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: The plutonium bomb, or &quot;fat man&quot;, was the second and largest atomic bomb to be dropped during world war two.</p> <hr /> <div>The plutonium bomb, or &quot;fat man&quot;, was the second and largest atomic bomb to be dropped during world war two.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chromoplasts&diff=78033 2007-03-31T22:02:45Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>Organelles that contain non-photosynthetic pigments used in [[photosynthesis]]. They are found in flower pedals and foods, such as tomatoes and carrots. It contains the pigments orange, red, and yellow. They are a member of a dynamic group of plant cell organelles called plastids. Plastids are beleived to have created a symbiotic relationship with primitive plants millions of years ago.&lt;ref&gt;Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Biology]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chromoplasts&diff=78031 2007-03-31T22:01:55Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>Organelles that contain non-photosynthetic pigments used in [[photosynthesis]]. It is found in flower pedals and foods, such as tomatoes and carrots. It contains the pigments orange, red, and yellow. It is a member of a dynamic group of plant cell organelles called plastids. Plastids are beleived to have created a symbiotic relationship with primitive plants millions of years ago.&lt;ref&gt;Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Biology]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=78008 2007-03-31T21:52:22Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>{{protect|Aschlafly}}<br /> <br /> ==Maintain the neutrality of the article==<br /> Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--[[User:Nosferatu.feuertote|Nosferatu.feuertote]] 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a &quot;billion dollar industry&quot;, neither of the linked &quot;references&quot; make any claims about the value of the &quot;abortion industry&quot;. I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first &quot;source&quot;: <br /> <br /> Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents. <br /> <br /> The second &quot;source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual. <br /> <br /> Brian<br /> <br /> ==&quot;This is Conservapedia&quot;==<br /> Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as &quot;conservatives&quot; ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a &quot;pro-choice conservative&quot; is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.<br /> <br /> See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:<br /> <br /> :prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.<br /> <br /> :Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. <br /> <br /> [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid.<br /> --[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference<br /> <br /> That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> : I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that &quot;most&quot; would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't &quot;add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?&quot; <br /> <br /> :: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians? <br /> <br /> :: And if Protestant denominations don't &quot;add anything to the teachings of Jesus&quot; than why do Baptists say they have &quot;no sacraments,&quot; Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the &quot;Real Presence&quot; of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only &quot;spiritually&quot; present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:<br /> <br /> :::''&quot;I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.&quot; Revelation 22:18-19''<br /> <br /> :::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible. <br /> ::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called &quot;abortion&quot; in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:<br /> <br /> :::&quot;If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.&quot; Exodus 21: 22-25<br /> <br /> :::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.<br /> <br /> :::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word &quot;abortivum&quot; to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means &quot;and the child went out&quot; which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments. <br /> <br /> ::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is &quot;Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.&quot; Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> : I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation &quot;twisted.&quot; (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> I dont know how you translated &quot;miscarraige&quot; from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for &quot;birth&quot; and &quot;and the child came out&quot; goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your &quot;analysis&quot;. The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a &quot;pro-life&quot; stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST) <br /> <br /> : It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an &quot;unborn fetus.&quot; The term &quot;with child&quot; is used, not &quot;with fetus.&quot; In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's &quot;babe&quot; leaps in her womb, not her &quot;fetus.&quot; Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;At two weeks pregnancy, the &quot;fetus&quot; can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.&lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> :At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not &quot;fix&quot; any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - &quot;I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.&quot; Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br /> ::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> : Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]<br /> '''<br /> <br /> :The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:<br /> Abortion<br /> <br /> Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...<br /> <br /> *if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion <br /> <br /> : '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.<br /> ::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> *if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party <br /> <br /> : '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.<br /> <br /> *if the page is to say that the &quot;pro-choice&quot; group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the &quot;pro-life&quot; group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives. <br /> <br /> :'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.<br /> <br /> However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.<br /> -Neurocat <br /> <br /> :'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]<br /> <br /> : Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: &quot;Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority...&quot; (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: &quot;I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.&quot; (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 &quot;And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost&quot; The Council of Ancyra also said &quot;Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees&quot; (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Additional Information==<br /> I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]<br /> <br /> This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?<br /> <br /> == profitability of abortion ==<br /> <br /> It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:<br /> <br /> http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm<br /> <br /> or for ghoulish Western research practices:<br /> <br /> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html<br /> http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247<br /> <br /> How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.<br /> <br /> ==Should the article introduce and define the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice?&quot;==<br /> <br /> Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&amp;curid=3937&amp;diff=17574&amp;oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> : I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> : As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with &quot;spin&quot; and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between &quot;pro-choice&quot; and &quot;pro-murder&quot; or &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-non-adult-life,&quot; please).<br /> <br /> ::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the &quot;spin&quot; represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves &quot;pro-abortion&quot; and &quot;anti-abortion&quot; (where it's understood that &quot;abortion&quot; is short for &quot;the continuing availability of legalized abortion.) <br /> <br /> ::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not &quot;self-evident.&quot; A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what &quot;pro-choice&quot; means, or that a &quot;pro-lifer&quot; can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a &quot;culture of life&quot; cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.<br /> [[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all &quot;pro-lifers&quot; support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as &quot;pro-life&quot; can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::Due diligence:<br /> <br /> ::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's &quot;Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.&quot;[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says &quot;antiabortion.&quot;[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under &quot;issues,&quot; includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically &quot;The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.&quot; Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says &quot;This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes.&quot;<br /> <br /> ::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the &quot;pro-life&quot; community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references &quot;pro-choice&quot;, and its passing references to &quot;pro-life&quot; near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.<br /> <br /> : Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Article weight ==<br /> <br /> There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between &quot;pro-life&quot; and &quot;pro-choice&quot; is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Bible==<br /> the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment &quot;You shall not murder&quot;. The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]<br /> <br /> == Seriously, please add this to the article ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;&quot;&gt;<br /> This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;includeonly&gt;[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]&lt;/includeonly&gt;<br /> <br /> *Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article<br /> <br /> ==Proposed new section==<br /> While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the &quot;rightness&quot; of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.<br /> <br /> Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ===Alternatives to abortion===<br /> Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people. <br /> <br /> The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.<br /> <br /> :*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]&lt;/sub&gt; 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle &quot;Abstinence doesn't always work&quot; as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]<br /> <br /> :::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe &quot;abortion is murder&quot;, then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Add Category:Abortion==<br /> Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Definition of abortion==<br /> According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&amp;va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==<br /> Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT<br /> <br /> == Reply to the above ==<br /> <br /> The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Abortion and Breast Cancer==<br /> <br /> In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word &quot;cause&quot; or &quot;causation&quot; is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state &quot;there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies.&quot; Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs &quot;Big Brother&quot; to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Historical view of abortion ==<br /> <br /> Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT<br /> <br /> : Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.<br /> <br /> : I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.<br /> <br /> : Your claim that the British taxpayer &quot;is happy to pay for this&quot; strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were &quot;happy to pay for this&quot; then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]<br /> <br /> You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT<br /> <br /> : Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT<br /> <br /> ==Portugal==<br /> Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.<br /> --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP &quot;The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months.&quot; [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT<br /> <br /> == Blocked? ==<br /> <br /> So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that &quot;liberal&quot; alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == death rate ==<br /> <br /> The first paragraph of the &quot;Other health effects&quot; section is <br /> :''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''<br /> Apart from &quot;association&quot; where it presumably should say &quot;associated&quot;, I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? &quot;110% of women who had abortions die&quot; would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Galactose&diff=76414 2007-03-31T01:53:52Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: Galactose(C&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sub&gt;12&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;)is a monosaccharide, or simple sugar. This sugar, when bonded with glucose creates lactose, the sugar found in dairy. It is an im...</p> <hr /> <div>Galactose(C&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sub&gt;12&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;)is a monosaccharide, or simple sugar. This sugar, when bonded with [[glucose]] creates [[lactose]], the sugar found in dairy. It is an important sugar in infants, transmitted via breastmilk. Galactose is the building block for carbohydrates associated with glycolipids and glycoproteins. In laymans terms, it is essential for storing information and building tissue. It is also known as &quot;brain sugar&quot; because it can be found in the brain and other nervous tissue.<br /> <br /> Galactose is more common than [[glucose]] but can only be used as an energy source after being changed into glucose by the liver. As with all essential [[sugar]]s, galactose is necessary for cell communication. If galactose is missing in the diet, a [[disease]] can develop. Studies have shown that high amounts of galactose in the body can prevent or help reverse the effects of colon cancer. It has also been shown to inhibit the growth of tumors, especially in the [[liver]]. It is also important in [[reproduction]], as it helps in the formation of [[sperm]].</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pork_Chops&diff=76393 2007-03-31T01:39:33Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>Pork chops are any meat cut from the loin portion of a [[pig]]. The loin is basically the back of a pig. The loin is divided into four categories, the first of which is located towards the head of the pig on its shoulder, and is called the shoulder chop. The biggest portion of the loin, located in the middle of the back, is commonly called the &quot;center cut&quot; and consists of both the rib and loin chops. Towards the butt of the pig is the sirloin chop. <br /> <br /> Before the [[civil war]], pork chops were the most popular meat in the [[United States]]. Back then, the richer you were, the higher up on the pig you ate, so the pork chop was an expensive cut. From the 1860's to the early 1960's, american pigs were called lard hogs, because they were about 60% fatter than today's hog. The pigs of today came from a cross breeding of lard hogs and the leaner bacon hogs, and a special diet to promote leaner muscle growth.<br /> <br /> Because the shoulder chop contains a lot of different muscles and connective tissue, it is best cooked using a slow cook method, such as [[braising]]. Rib chops are best suited for fast, dry cooking, so if you're lookin' to [[grill]], this is the cut for you. Because the pig has naturally dry meat, it is common to let all cuts sit in a [[brine]]. This helps them retain a lot of their moisture when cooking. A common favorite preparation for many involves the pork chop being topped, stuffed, or rolled with [[fruits]] and [[onions]]. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Food]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glucose&diff=76243 2007-03-31T00:43:47Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>Glucose(C&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sub&gt;12&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;), also known as D-glucose, dextrose, and blood sugar, is the main source of energy in most animals and plants. It can be found in almost all plants, because it is the product of [[photosynthesis]]. In humans, it is the major source of energy. Upon ingesting glucose, it is absorbed into the blood stream by the [[small intestine]], carried to the [[liver]] via the [[portal vein]], where some is stored, and the rest reenters the [[circulatory system]]. A lot is stored in the muscles and various other cells.<br /> <br /> When there is not enough glucose in your body, you start experiencing the symptoms of [[hypoglycemia]]. Because the lack of glucose inhibits your cells from operating properly, you will feel fatigued, light headed, and nauseaus. In extreme cases, people can go into comas. A common disorder called [[diabetes]] is caused by your body's inability to use glucose productively. This can happen when your body doesn't produce enough [[insolin]], or you become &quot;glucose intolerant&quot; from lack of excersize and bad diet.<br /> <br /> Glucose is used a lot in cooking, especially baking and making various types of sweets. It is used so commonly in baking because it is readily [[ferment]]ed, or fed on, by [[yeast]]. It is used to make a lot of candies and frostings because it doesn't crystalize easily.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glucose&diff=76229 2007-03-31T00:39:11Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: Glucose, also known as D-glucose, dextrose, and blood sugar, is the main source of energy in most animals and plants. It can be found in almost all plants, because it is the product of [[p...</p> <hr /> <div>Glucose, also known as D-glucose, dextrose, and blood sugar, is the main source of energy in most animals and plants. It can be found in almost all plants, because it is the product of [[photosynthesis]]. In humans, it is the major source of energy. Upon ingesting glucose, it is absorbed into the blood stream by the [[small intestine]], carried to the [[liver]] via the [[portal vein]], where some is stored, and the rest reenters the [[circulatory system]]. A lot is stored in the muscles and various other cells.<br /> <br /> When there is not enough glucose in your body, you start experiencing the symptoms of [[hypoglycemia]]. Because the lack of glucose inhibits your cells from operating properly, you will feel fatigued, light headed, and nauseaus. In extreme cases, people can go into comas. A common disorder called [[diabetes]] is caused by your body's inability to use glucose productively. This can happen when your body doesn't produce enough [[insolin]], or you become &quot;glucose intolerant&quot; from lack of excersize and bad diet.<br /> <br /> Glucose is used a lot in cooking, especially baking and making various types of sweets. It is used so commonly in baking because it is readily [[ferment]]ed, or fed on, by [[yeast]]. It is used to make a lot of candies and frostings because it doesn't crystalize easily.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pork_Chops&diff=76104 2007-03-30T23:50:08Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>Pork chops are any meat cut from the loin portion of a [[pig]]. The loin is basically the back of a pig. The loin is divided into four categories, the first of which is located towards the head of the pig on its shoulder, and is called the shoulder chop. The biggest portion of the loin, located in the middle of the back, is commonly called the &quot;center cut&quot; and consists of both the rib and loin chops. Towards the butt of the pig is the sirloin chop. <br /> <br /> Before the [[civil war]], pork chops were the most popular meat in the [[United States]]. Back then, the richer you were, the higher up on the pig you ate, so the pork chop was an expensive cut. From the 1860's to the early 1960's, american pigs were called lard hogs, because they were about 60% fatter than today's hog. The pigs of today came from a cross breeding of lard hogs and the leaner bacon hogs, and a special diet to promote leaner muscle growth.<br /> <br /> Because the shoulder chop contains a lot of different muscles and connective tissue, it is best cooked using a slow cook method, such as [[braising]]. Rib chops are best suited for fast, dry cooking, so if you're lookin' to [[grill]], this is the cut for you. Because the pig has naturally dry meat, it is common to let all cuts sit in a [[brine]]. This helps them retain a lot of their moisture when cooking.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Food]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Pork_Chops&diff=76052 2007-03-30T23:31:46Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>This is the first article i've written from scratch, so i'd appreciate any constructive critism. And if you find any errors in the text be sure to let me know.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 19:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> and im not sure if ur on right now, hoji, but i was hopin u'd help me kind of 'dress up' this article.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 19:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Pork_Chops&diff=76051 2007-03-30T23:31:31Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>This is the first article i've written from scratch, so i'd appreciate any constructive critism. And if you find any errors in the text be sure to let me know.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 19:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> and im not sure if ur on right now, hoji, but i was hopin u'd help me kind of 'dress up' this article.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Pork_Chops&diff=75984 2007-03-30T23:07:02Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>This is the first article i've written from scratch, so i'd appreciate any constructive critism. And if you find any errors in the text be sure to let me know.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 19:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Pork_Chops&diff=75981 2007-03-30T23:06:48Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: This is the first article i've written from scratch, so i'd appreciate any constructive critism. And if you find any errors in the text be sure to let me know.</p> <hr /> <div>This is the first article i've written from scratch, so i'd appreciate any constructive critism. And if you find any errors in the text be sure to let me know.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pork_Chops&diff=75976 2007-03-30T23:04:29Z

<p>Sersabian: New page: Pork chops are any meat cut from the loin portion of a pig. The loin is basically the back of a pig. The loin is divided into four categories, the first of which is located towards the hea...</p> <hr /> <div>Pork chops are any meat cut from the loin portion of a pig. The loin is basically the back of a pig. The loin is divided into four categories, the first of which is located towards the head of the pig on its shoulder, and is called the shoulder chop. The biggest portion of the loin, located in the middle of the back, is commonly called the &quot;center cut&quot; and consists of both the rib and loin chops. Towards the butt of the pig is the sirloin chop. <br /> <br /> Before the civil war, pork chops were the most popular meat in the United States. Back then, the richer you were, the higher up on the pig you ate, so the pork chop was an expensive cut. From the 1860's to the early 1960's, american pigs were called lard hogs, because they were about 60% fatter than today's hog. The pigs of today came from a cross breeding of lard hogs and the leaner bacon hogs, and a special diet to promote leaner muscle growth.<br /> <br /> Because the shoulder chop contains a lot of different muscles and connective tissue, it is best cooked using a slow cook method, such as braising. Rib chops are best suited for fast, dry cooking, so if you're lookin' to grill, this is the cut for you. Because the pig has naturally dry meat, it is common to let all cuts sit in a brine. This helps them retain a lot of their moisture when cooking.</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:French_fries&diff=74416 2007-03-30T04:28:28Z

<p>Sersabian: /* False Statement? */</p> <hr /> <div>Any chance of citations with that order of Fries dbpsmith? ;) --[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 13:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :[[Goats]] got it. Good going! You do ''know'' that the &quot;french&quot; in culinary terms does not refer to the country of France but is only a to denote a food (typically a vegetable) that has been fried to the point of caramelization?[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&lt;sup&gt;[[UserTalk:Cracker|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::Well, the French &lt;small&gt;&lt;font color=A0A0A0&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/small&gt; thinks that the phrase &quot;French fries&quot; might come from Ireland, where, it says, to &quot;french&quot; something means simply to '''cut''' it:<br /> :::En effet, le verbe &quot;to french&quot; signifie &quot;couper&quot; en irlandais. Il s'agit donc de &quot;pommes de terre coupées&quot;.[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frite]<br /> ::::I'm sticking with the &quot;caramalization&quot; theory based on french toast.<br /> :::::Well, since then I've turned up quite a bunch of conflicting origin stories, which I haven't had time to try to collect or make sense of. There is at least other source saying to &quot;french&quot; means to cut. Belgians do think they originated in Belgium, but it's not clear how widely this is believed elsewhere. I think folks should be careful about saying anything too definite about this. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==False Statement?==<br /> AustinM, what part of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=French_fries&amp;diff=31671&amp;oldid=27716 this] was a &quot;false statement&quot;? They ''are'' called &quot;frites&quot; (short for &quot;pommes frites&quot;, which in turn is short for &quot;pommes de terres frites&quot; - fried potatoes) in other languages. The Belgian origin is apparently a somewhat complex issue, but I wouldn't simply call it false, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :I got a little confused. In (half of) Belgium they speak French, so its not true to say they are called frites in other languages (although in German they are allso called pomme frites). HAving done some reading you are righ in saying the french consider them belgian. ANyway you can put it back if you can find the right citations.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> They are called &quot;pommes frites&quot; in Swedish.--[[User:What|What]]<br /> <br /> I think this article spent too much time on the history of the name, and then went off on a tangent about different countries changing the names of foods because of war. this article should have more information about the actual food.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 00:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Welcome&diff=74375 2007-03-30T04:05:09Z

<p>Sersabian: /* Welcome! */</p> <hr /> <div>==Welcome!==<br /> {| align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;width:{{{width|100%}}}; margin-top:.5em; padding-top: 1em; padding-left: 1em; background: transparent; border:solid medium lightblue; -moz-border-radius: 15px;&quot;<br /> |'''''&lt;big&gt;Welcome&lt;/big&gt; To Conservapedia, {{{1}}}!'''''&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> |<br /> |&lt;table style=&quot;border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .5em .5em .5em 1em; padding: 5px; float: center&quot; class=&quot;noprint&quot; width=&quot;500&quot;&gt;<br /> |'''Here are some links to help you get started:'''<br /> |*[[The Conservapedia Commandments]]<br /> |*[[Conservapedia Talk]]<br /> |*[[Talk:Main Page]]<br /> |}</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Welcome&diff=74373 2007-03-30T04:04:29Z

<p>Sersabian: /* Welcome! */</p> <hr /> <div>==Welcome!==<br /> {| align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;width:{{{width|100%}}}; margin-top:.5em; padding-top: 1em; padding-left: 1em; background: transparent; border:solid medium lightblue; -moz-border-radius: 15px;&quot;<br /> |'''''&lt;big&gt;Welcome&lt;/big&gt; To Conservapedia, {{{1}}}!'''''&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> |<br /> |&lt;table style=&quot;border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .5em .5em .5em 1em; padding: 5px; float: center&quot; class=&quot;noprint&quot; width=&quot;500&quot;&gt;<br /> |'''Here are some links to help you get started:'''<br /> |*[[The Conservapedia Commandments]]<br /> |*[[Conservapedia Talk]]<br /> |*[[Talk:Main Page]]<br /> |}<br /> also, why do my comment things come out in a weird text box?</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Idaho&diff=74282 2007-03-30T03:16:24Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Idaho''' is a state in the USA, becoming the 43rd state to enter the Union on July 3, 1890. It is to the south of [[Canada]], to the north of [[Nevada]], to the west of [[Montana]] and to the east of [[Washington]] and [[Oregon]]. Idaho is known for producing [[potato]]es. Three major universities are located in Idaho. In the city of Moscow, in northwestern Idaho on the boarder of [[Washington]], is the University of Idaho. Boise State University, located in southwestern Idaho in the city of Boise, is the biggest and most well known University. In the little known city of Pocatello, Idaho State University can be found.<br /> <br /> ==Miscellaneous facts==<br /> <br /> The capital and largest city of Idaho is Boise.<br /> <br /> The state is known as the Gem state.<br /> <br /> The name &quot;Idaho&quot; is almost certainly a word made up by lobbyist George Willing, who falsely claimed it was a word in the Shoshone language. &lt;ref&gt;http://www1.relocate-america.com/states/id/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The movie ''Napoleon Dynamite'' was set in Idaho, and the Idaho State House of Representatives passed a resolution honoring the movie. &lt;ref&gt;http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/2005/HCR029.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notable people from Idaho==<br /> <br /> [[Philo Farnsworth]], the inventor of television, was from Rigby.<br /> <br /> W. Mark Felt, who admitted to being the government source that exposed President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[Watergate Scandal]], was born in Twin Falls.<br /> <br /> Author [[Ernest Hemingway]] lived in Ketchum.<br /> <br /> [[Ezra Pound]], a notable Modernist poet, was born in Hailey.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:US state]]</div>

Sersabian https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Idaho&diff=74280 2007-03-30T03:15:41Z

<p>Sersabian: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Idaho''' is a state in the USA, becoming the 43rd state to enter the Union on July 3, 1890. It is to the south of [[Canada]], to the north of [[Nevada]], to the west of [[Montana]] and to the east of [[Washington]] and [[Oregon]]. Idaho is known for producing [[potato]]es. Three major universities are located in Idaho. In the city of Moscow, in northwestern Idaho on the boarder of Washington, is the University of Idaho. Boise State University, located in southwestern Idaho in the city of Boise, is the biggest and most well known University. In the little known city of Pocatello, Idaho State University can be found.<br /> <br /> ==Miscellaneous facts==<br /> <br /> The capital and largest city of Idaho is Boise.<br /> <br /> The state is known as the Gem state.<br /> <br /> The name &quot;Idaho&quot; is almost certainly a word made up by lobbyist George Willing, who falsely claimed it was a word in the Shoshone language. &lt;ref&gt;http://www1.relocate-america.com/states/id/&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The movie ''Napoleon Dynamite'' was set in Idaho, and the Idaho State House of Representatives passed a resolution honoring the movie. &lt;ref&gt;http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/2005/HCR029.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notable people from Idaho==<br /> <br /> [[Philo Farnsworth]], the inventor of television, was from Rigby.<br /> <br /> W. Mark Felt, who admitted to being the government source that exposed President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[Watergate Scandal]], was born in Twin Falls.<br /> <br /> Author [[Ernest Hemingway]] lived in Ketchum.<br /> <br /> [[Ezra Pound]], a notable Modernist poet, was born in Hailey.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:US state]]</div>

Sersabian