Talk:Doe v. Bolton

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Doe v. Bolton as edited by DouglasA (Talk | contribs) at 12:09, 24 September 2009. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

ABC- serious objections to the current article.

Um, were not going to seriously claim there's a link are we? First, of all that's been pretty thoroughly debunked. Second of all, even if there were a link there isn't anything ironic here- almost all medical decisions are trade offs- even routine surgery has risks of serious side effects, most standard vaccines have risks of problems, etc. One doesn't need pretend that there is an ABC link to see serious problems with Doe v. Bolton and with Roe. It does a disservice to Conservapedia by making it look like we need to do so. JoshuaZ 00:20, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Nearly all the studies, and simple logic, indicate the link, Joshua. For starters, it's conclusively proven that childbirth is preventive of breast cancer. No one disputes this.
But your reaction is not surprising as the abortion industry is as effective as the tobacco industry was in the 1950s in concealing its harm. Regardless, the entry on Doe v. Bolton cites the peer-reviewed articles supporting the link.--Aschlafly 10:27, 19 February 2007 (EST)
You a) ignored my point that even if there were a link there isn't anything ironic in this decision. I don't know how much I can emphasize that- all medical decisions are trade-offs. The presence of possible negatives here doesn't make that ironic. (To use an easy example, consider a female with an ectopic pregnancy). Second, your citations are to put it mildly, not representative of the scientific consensus. See for example [1] the NIH's report]. The pro-life cause has far better arguments than relying on minority scientific opinions about at best barely statistically significant risks and to continue to push these sorts of things hurts both the cause and Conservapedia. We can do better than this, and should be doing better than this. JoshuaZ 20:48, 19 February 2007 (EST)
There is no "trade-off" in health risks/benefits for abortion. The studies almost unanimously show that abortion significantly increases risk of breast cancer and premature birth for future children. No reasonably objective scientist seriously disputes this. Many studies predate Roe v. Wade.
Your link to NIH, a highly politicized arm of government, does not work.
There may be better arguments against abortion, but that does not justify concealing the facts: abortion causes serious health long-term medical harm to the patients. Regardless of your position on abortion, the public should be aware of this. This is precisely the type of information that Conservapedia should truthfully provide. I haven't looked, but I bet this information wouldn't last 60 minutes on Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 22:16, 19 February 2007 (EST)
I repaired the link to the NIH- now regarding your other comments- I note that you ignored the situation I specifically mentioned of an ectopic pregancy. The point wasn't that abortion in the general case is healthy, the point is there are cases where an abortion is a reasonable course of action based on the various associated health risks. And there are many similar examples. I don't know how else to say this - all health procedures are tradeoffs and there are circumstances where it is the best thing to do from a health perspective (to use an extreme analogy, there are circumstances where an amputation is the best thing to do(such as severe gangrene), that is true regardless of the associated problems from having an amputation). There is therefore no irony in the decision even if one were to agree about the ABC-link. (I note incidentally that you have now also brought up issues of pre-mature birth, no as I understand there is more evidence for that than for an ABC-link, but that isn't even mentioned in the article).
Moving onwards, I find the claim that the NIH is "a highly politicized arm of government" to be nothing short of incredible and I'd very much like to see any evidence of that that isn't of the form "here is a study X, and this study doesn't support A Schlafly political viewpoint." As to your claim that that information would be removed on Wikipedia, it would be for one simple reason- Wikipedia has an "undue weight" clause in its neutrality policy and as long as the scientific consensus is that there isn't an ABC link, Wikipedia will report that as the scientific consensus. Wikipedia doesn't care about truth, but about verifiability and as this point the scientific consensus is clear. Now, it may be possible that there is some big evil liberal conspiracy that includes the NIH and the CDC and the WHO and every other health organization you can thing of and that wouldn't alter Wikipedia policy one iota or how to present the article. JoshuaZ 23:18, 19 February 2007 (EST)

The paragraph about the irony of abortion, etc. should be removed as it has no weight on the subject of Doe v. Bolton. This is almost a parallel to the cited case of gossip on Wikipedia. Furthermore, this is an article on Doe v. Bolton, not on childbirth, the benefits of which should be discussed on its page. --ColinR 15:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)