Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 232:
Line 232: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
moved from talk page
I'd like to see some sort of evidence that PP's "aggressive marketing in minority communities" is largely responsible for disparate abortion rates. Also, the abortion and cancer stuff remains a stretch. While women who've given birth eventually have lower risk of breast cancer, for 5-15 years afterward the risk is higher - Liu et al (2002), ''Cancer Causes & Control'', 13: 299-305; Lambe et al (1994), NEJM, 331:5-9. Also, having an abortion has been linked to decreased risk of other cancers - Parslov et al (2000), ''American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology'', 182:23-29. So, not really that simple after all. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 18:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to see some sort of evidence that PP's "aggressive marketing in minority communities" is largely responsible for disparate abortion rates. Also, the abortion and cancer stuff remains a stretch. While women who've given birth eventually have lower risk of breast cancer, for 5-15 years afterward the risk is higher - Liu et al (2002), ''Cancer Causes & Control'', 13: 299-305; Lambe et al (1994), NEJM, 331:5-9. Also, having an abortion has been linked to decreased risk of other cancers - Parslov et al (2000), ''American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology'', 182:23-29. So, not really that simple after all. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 18:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
== Moved from my talk page ==
I raised the point that the [[Planned Parenthood]] article doesn't address the good things PP does. It's above, in the "terrorism" section. I consider that unresolved.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 20:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:May I suggest that you post a list on my user talk page of the 5 or 10 most important good things which [[Planned Parenthood]] does? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: Replying to Ames, those exams are a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does, and it is not how it makes its money. Abortion is its money-maker. If you can support your claim in a meaningful way, then it could be added ''after'' the central activity of Planned Parenthood is explained. One doesn't emphasize that a tobacco company supports the arts without first explaining in detail how it profits from selling deadly cigarettes, targeting and addicting teenagers, exporting the stuff, etc. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
For the vast majority of people who PP interacts with, their interactions are defined by well-care, not abortions. But, conceding the point ''arguendo'', if you think that the majority of an industry's actions should be viewed primarily, perhaps you agree that science should be treated the same way, with "mainstream" science portrayed first, and "creationistarianism," or whatever they call it these days, should be portrayed second. After all, you wouldn't want to insinuate that a group's minority dominated its perspective. Agreed?<br/>
Anyways, though, the modern PP is much more of a sexual health advocacy group, [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/press-releases-5593.htm as seen here], most of their issues relate to sexual education et al, not abortion. I'm sure you have statistics to the contrary. Let's see them!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 20:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)