124
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 110:
Line 110: + +
Talk:Harvard abortion study (view source)
Revision as of 18:16, April 25, 2007
, 18:16, April 25, 2007→Full study text
# ''"Over 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire exhibited confusion about the wording, where the unfamiliar term "spontaneous abortion" was used to mean "miscarriage"."'' I don't see the point here, how could there be a difference between inducing and miscarriage? In both cases the fetus is lost prematurely. Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't see where you got that 25% from.
# ''"Over 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire exhibited confusion about the wording, where the unfamiliar term "spontaneous abortion" was used to mean "miscarriage"."'' I don't see the point here, how could there be a difference between inducing and miscarriage? In both cases the fetus is lost prematurely. Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't see where you got that 25% from.
And I also want to point out that of the 105,716 participants: 2916 got breast cancer, and only 535 of them reported having abortions. If abortions did contribute to the risk of breast cancer you would expect that number to be way higher. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
And I also want to point out that of the 105,716 participants: 2916 got breast cancer, and only 535 of them reported having abortions. If abortions did contribute to the risk of breast cancer you would expect that number to be way higher. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
*Jrssr5, you aren't understanding the point that aschlafly is trying to make. He doesn't care what the study says. He would rather make up what the study says to further his agenda on this site. --'''<font color="#008000">[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]]</font><sup>[[User talk:Liberalmedia|Complain here]]</sup>''' 14:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
== Comment ==
== Comment ==
Why discuss this at all? The Conservapedia editors have made it clear that any attempt to clarify, un-bias, or balance this article will be reversed, and that repeated attempts will merely make them close it off for revision. The whole POINT of Conservapedia is to present a one-sided (non-liberal) viewpoint. If a reader were interested in scientific accuracy, he or she would look elsewhere; the Conservapedia reader wants a validation of the viewpoints he or she already holds (or, in the case of liberals with too much time on their hands, a cheap laugh).
Why discuss this at all? The Conservapedia editors have made it clear that any attempt to clarify, un-bias, or balance this article will be reversed, and that repeated attempts will merely make them close it off for revision. The whole POINT of Conservapedia is to present a one-sided (non-liberal) viewpoint. If a reader were interested in scientific accuracy, he or she would look elsewhere; the Conservapedia reader wants a validation of the viewpoints he or she already holds (or, in the case of liberals with too much time on their hands, a cheap laugh).