Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Biased, one-sided, of dubious accuracy, and a transparent attempt to demonise an organisation. Welcome to conservapedia. How can this site be expected to have any credability when all it offers is a distorted image of reality? I am surprised I do not see any accusations of deliberate genocide by Planned Par... oh, wait, there they are. My mistake. Now, how long before someone tries to compare them to a certian well-known dictator or his political party? - Suricou Raven.

I'm new at creating articles so any help would be great thanks.

Thanks, Kathryn. I'm going to "move" your article to Planned Parenthood with the 2nd P capitalized. --Ed Poor 20:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I thought I'd have more time to work on this page but not untill tommorow. So it will be short for now I guess.

"Planned Parenthood vigorously opposes abstinence" -- Their website lists "continuous abstinence" as a form of birth control, with a long discussion of its pros and possible problems. It is in fact the first method listed.

"They profit from abortion" -- They're a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Is it accurate to say they 'profit' from anything at all? Jtl 01:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Article is starting out very bias. It is too anti-planned parenting and since it has no sitations I am removing that part of the article and anyone who can help by contributing usefull information that is not bias would be lovely. Thanks :) ~ And also I am unsure how to make citations or whatever so im just adding links as subscripts and hopefully someone can help me out thanks

Can there be some balance in this article? I think I've seen provides maternal and reproductive health-care to women and couples entered and romoved multiple times.
The issue seems to be:
  • Is PP only about abortions and contraceptives - i.e., preventing pregnancy and childbirth?
  • Or is it a significant provider of pregnancy and childbirth support? --Ed Poor 23:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I keep trying to make the article but Bananaman keeps erasing it just to say they preform abortions. It's getting annoying and it'd be lovely if someone could ban them or something so I could complete this article to be completely unbias and not lacking any important information.

I'm sorry that you disagree with me Karyn, but Planned Parenthood is clearly in the busines of performing abortions, funding abortions, promoting abortions as birth control, and using abortion as population control. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that your views aren't wrong. You can take your liberal agenda to WIkipedia, where they support such 'freedom of speech'. --Bananaman 23:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No, actualy it's not. Just because you say it is doesn't mean it's so. Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides reproductive health care and preforms abortions as a last resort type thing. I am not being controversal. I am making a simple clean article. And just because you want be all weird about it is not my problem. Everyone deserves the right to know the truth, and saying planned parenthood ONLY does abortions and does it to be evil is just not right. The article is clean, short and to the point.

P.S. My names Kathryn :) Not karyn. ~

I don't ban so quickly as that. You two try to work this out, please. Here is the problematic stuff:
Planned Parenthood provides maternal and reproductive health-care to women and couples. They are an international non profit organization that is committed to providing low coast health care. Planned Parenthood offers high-quality health care. [1] They promote abstinence as the only sure way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but also provide birth control. [2] Planned Parenthood Federation of America states that all individuals should have the freedom to make reproductive decisions.They believe that the freedom to make reproductive decisions involves the right to privacy, especially in relationships; the right to education and that every individual should be able to make a informed decisions about sexuality and reproduction; and the right to nondiscriminatory access to comprehensive and confidential healthcare. [3]
I'm sure a balanced article can come out of this. Let me know if you need help. I'll check back in a day or two. --Ed Poor 23:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay this article keeps getting switched and moved around. I can't tell whats going on. But really, I used no foul language, nothing innapropriate and kept it short and simple. It's not like I wrote stuff like OMG EVERYONE GET AN ABORTION YAY or something, no. I didn't. The article is unbiased. I am neither for or against planned parenting. I'm neutral. I don't know why everyone thinks im evil for writing this article or something, but frankly you guys call wikipedia 'biased' but atleast they provide the truth on subects. I'm simply trying to help out here by providing a neutral view on the subject by creating a clean and short article.


Changing the subject of the discussion page, what exactly is low "coast" health care?NSmyth 01:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Brilliance. Since the world is getting warmer the oceans will rise and the coasts will become "lower", User:Conservative is just ahead of the game.


Sanger was crazy. Known fact. No-one today favors eugenics, not Planned Parenthood, not anyone. As such, to prevent such an inflammatory statement from being made, I restructured the latter half of the article.-AmesGyo! 01:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, please note that I have deleted no citations, even the ones I think are abominable. This was a neutral edit, and I hope it will be treated as such.-AmesGyo! 01:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That edit was all context, and important for your readers. Debate it here before you revert it!-AmesGyo! 01:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Another of Conservative's pet projects, protected & biased, here we come.-AmesGyo! 01:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, whoops, sorry, was that me who despite protection changed it back to something a little less...inflammatory and biased? Sorry.Nsmyth 01:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Problem with First Paragraph

An organization's own materials are not authority for self-serving claims it makes about itself. This entry is in a revert war so it may not be clear exactly what I'm talking about, but the versions that repeatedly cite to the organization's own self-serving claims are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We are to be more objective than that.--Aschlafly 01:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Unsourced statements being allowed by Sysop NSmyth

Unsourced statements are being allowed by Sysop NSmyth. Why are you saying that the present organization is not racist. Where is your proof? Where are the sources?

I suggest reading:

Planned Parenthood charged with racism Conservative 01:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I'm still trying to find the part of the article that denies racism. The article seems to neither confirm or deny racism, but I occasionally miss subtle things like that. Point it out for me and I'll gladly look for a source, if I can't find one, I'll remove that line in the article.NSmyth 02:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)... I'm also good at missing obvious links in talk pages when I'm tired heh. Put that in.NSmyth
Please look at my present version and see if everything is supported. Also, I am building a case through more and more research. Conservative 02:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, for probably the first time since I first noticed your edits, I am in agreement with you. I'm perfectly happy with your work on the article at this point.NSmyth 07:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

External Links

Here a couple of external links:


Dear User:Conservative:

Missionaries to Preborn cites numerous sources. You do not know what those sources say. Go to the library, look them up, make sure they're accurate. Missionaries to Preborn is not a scholarly or journalistic organization. You know absolutely nothing about the level of rigor they used in researching what amounts to be an opinion piece. Likewise, the citizens review online site has copied an article whole hog from Concerned Women for America. That link is dead. Makes it tricky to verify the process doesn't it? The Muse website requires registration. World Net Daily is, sadly, your most reliable source. Myk 03:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Further.... Conservative, is it even possible for you to work on an article without locking it? THIS IS A WIKI! Myk 03:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I have checked several statements in regards to the article you cited and they checked out. Again, which statement is in error? Conservative 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Ok, I'm not going to try and start any fights here. I said some of these sources are uncredible, and I am going to back up what I said. However, I want to apologize for what I did early, I should have given you a reason.

  1. Missionariestopreborn, first off, uses picture of aborted fetuses, which I feel not only is unethical, but an abomination under God. Secondly, as myk said above, the article is using other sources, we should be using THOSE sources, and not the "missionariestopreborn" page.
  2. Citzen'sreview seems more credible, I still purport that perhaps we should be using the orginal material, I also wish that the original article could be accessed an not this hosted version.
  3. The Muse page seems well done, and is attached to a scholarly journal.
  4. The Eternal World Television has an obvious bias, and many statements in the article are quotes out of context, seen here. [4]

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." [4]

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." [5]

Both of these quotes are examples of quote mining or mis context of the quote. In the first quote, we can see that she is being Ironic when we look at the context. In the second quote, when we look at the full quote, we see that she doesn't want the word to get out because it would be a misconception.

  1. WorldNetDaily has an obvious bias and the site is riddled with fake ads about energy pills and the like. Pertaining to the actual article, I do not know whether or not it is what it purports to be, but it is obvious that it is not from a NPOV.
  2. LifeSite, this site appears much more credible, I have no problems with this site.

--Elamdri 03:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Forums should not be cited as sources, because anybody can post anything on there. MountainDew 03:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

What forums?--Elamdri 03:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I did further research to bolster my racism/Sanger claim. Please see additional quotes. Conservative 06:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

current research

"George Grant points out in his history of Planned Parenthood, Grand Illusions (1988), Sanger devoted the entire April 1933 issue of Birth Control Review to eugenics. One of the articles, "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need," was written by Ernst Rudin, Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene." [5]

*OK... right there. You quoted The American Spectator but where it was sourced on an MIT host. The source is not MIT, it is the American Spectator. And... it's not even the American Spectator! it's about a book, Grand Illusions. Have you read this book? You're quoting a website, quoting an opinion piece in a magazine which is discussing a book which talks about a magazine from 1933. Throw Kevin Bacon in there and you have a fun little party game. Myk 03:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

"During the 1930s Margaret Sanger published The Birth Control Review, in which she openly supported Nazi Germany's "infanticide program" in the 1930s, and publicly championed Adolf Hitler's goal of Aryan white supremacy. Prior to World War II she commissioned Nazi Ernst Rudin, director of the dreaded German medical experimentation programs, to serve as an advisor to her organization." [6]

'In 1939, Margaret Sanger organized the Negro Project, designed to eliminate members of what she believed to be an "inferior race." She justified her proposal because "the masses of Negroes... particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit..."3" [7]


You lock every article you edit Conservative? Crackertalk

I have a source: Feel free to use it. It's the actual online version of the book that was quoted by the site. It's a Primary source, which ought to be used if available, which, as you can plainly see, it is. Thank you. Crackertalk 09:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Misattributed Quotes

Not surprisingly, Conservative, you have false information in your article. The second quote you have attruibuted to Sanger ("The mass of ignorant Negroes") was actually said by W.E.B. DuBois in the June 1932 issue of Birth Control Review--Dave3172 09:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, most of the quotes in the article are examples of quote mining, mis-attributed quotes, or quotes out of context.--Elamdri 15:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I know. Misleading quotes and Conservative are the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of Conservapedia; they just go together.--Dave3172 16:15, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
We were all wrong about that quote: "the mass of signficant Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit and least able to rear children properly."[1] (Margaret Sanger - The "Negro Project" quoting W.E.B. Dubious with the omission of one word) I do thank you though and I was intending to double check that quote when I back from my appointment and then I saw your message.

Conservative 17:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative, I would ask that you either use the full quote from Sanger in reqards to exterminating Negros and ministers, as I puts the quote into context.--Elamdri 17:18, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Specifically, this is the full text.

“It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County’s white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.

The minister’s work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs.

The bolded part is the only part in the article and misrepresents the quote.

--Elamdri 17:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess the "our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach" is rather vague. So I will delete the quote unless greater context shows its valid. 17:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Thank You!--Elamdri 18:33, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
These quotes are also from the 1920s ... just a little bit outdated. And the first quote you put up about being merciful, makes sense if you read the whole paragraph. Margaret says that children in poor large families will likely have health problems (malnutrition, poor constitution, etc) so maybe the only humane thing to do is not have them suffer through childhood. "The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment." Jrssr5 08:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Here's a quote from Sanger's autobiography Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography that should be included: "To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." Jrssr5 08:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Represent the Good Side (posted on Andy's wall, too)

I think the articles gives too little credit for good things that Planned Parenthood does. I have many friends (who have never had sex) who use Planned Parenthood for cheaper birth control pills, to regulate their hormones and control what would otherwise be excruciatingly painful cycles, if you know what I mean. They also use Planned Parenthood for annual gynecological exams at a discounted rate, since having a private practice doctor do the same exam is significantly more expensive. I think we can disagree about abortions, but I think women's health is an absolute positive, and something that Planned Parenthood does well. The article should say so.-AmesGyo! 10:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The argument that would be made here is that the only reason the health-care and medicines are so cheap is that the abortions performed at PP subsidize everything else. In other words, a woman gets "gynecological exams at a discounted rate" because she's getting them at the expense of dead babies. In other other words there is no good at Planned Parenthood only less bad things. Crackertalk 10:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
If health care was cheaper in America, women wouldn't have to get cheaper health care at the "expense of dead babies". Personally, I'm all for planned parenthood(notice the lack of capitalization, I'm talking about the idea, not the organization), and I definitly like the idea of health care being more available to women. I don't believe in forcing others to believe what I believe, so I'm pro-choice. If a woman gets an abortion, it doesn't bother me, it doesn't effect me(in any way shape or form, try to tell me that God will smite me because I say this, I do believe the bible says to leave the judgement up to him, that's exactly what I'm doing). I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not my decision, and it's not anyone else's either. The choice about whether or not having an abortion is right lies with the mother and the father of the unborn child, and only them. I apologize for the semi-rant.NSmyth 12:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't apologize - it's one of the most lucid, rational things anyone has said here.--Dave3172 13:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


Interesting article, but it really should be named something like "controversial historical issues in PP" given that most of the content has absolutely nothing to do with the modern organization. I have a decent amount of contact with them, and their current organization is completely misrepresented here. It really is a travesty, but I'm not the one to fix it.--PalMDtalk 10:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. Conservative, out of curiosity, do you genuinely believe that PP has more facilities in "ethnic schools" (as you called them) or neighborhoods as part of a strategy to reduce the number of minorities in the US? Besides the larger POV issue, this entry is not well written. Murray 11:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


PP does not simply "provide health services". It has positions and asserts them loudly.

Here is an example:

"Throughout the year, the federal government steps up its war on women and freedom of choice ... " [snip by Ed Poor for CP discussion]

  • The U.S. State Department freezes $3 million in funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to anti-choice objections to the WHO's Human Reproduction Program; HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer; the HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects;" and "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden is named to oversee Title X, the nation's family planning program. [8]

This implies that they strongly oppose abstinence - a point 'fact-tagged' in the article recently. They use this bullet point as 'ammunition' in the 'war' over "women and freedom of choice".

This implies that they favor the POV of the United Nations, as the WHO is completely under UN control.

This accuses HHS of removing "medically accurate information about condom effectiveness", whatever that means. Looks like they advocate condom use for something - is it contraception and/or VD prevention? (Sorry about the archaic language, I don't think I'll ever make the switch to 'STD' - sounds like an oil additive.)

This asserts that there is no "proven link between abortion and breast cancer".

A whole bunch of interesting points to keep us busy in coming weeks. --Ed Poor 12:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

There's an enormous difference between opposing abstinence and opposing abstinence-only sex ed. Are you sure they're referring to the former? Tsumetai 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems pretty clear that their opposition is to abstinence only sex ed. DrLib 12:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Tsumetai, no, I'm not sure. That's what these discussion pages are for.
But I'm also not sure whether there's much difference between (1) opposing abstinence and (2) saying "abstinence would be better, but we don't really think you are capable of it, and since you're going to fornicate anyway, try (blank)". --Ed Poor 12:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
It's closer to saying, "abstinence would be betterm but if you don't believe in the same things we do, and feel that you must fornicate, use (insert method of birth control here) in order to help keep yourselves from getting STIs and from becoming parents at such a young age."NSmyth 12:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I think there's a big difference between the 2. And I suspect the attitude is more "here are some things you should know if you choose to have sex" rather than "because we don't think you can help yourselves." DrLib 12:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, im not that younger than you, but no one uses VD anymore...get with the times man! Anyway, like I said, I work with them a lot, they have nothing against abstinence, just education that excludes things other than abstinence.--PalMDtalk 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

And btw, to repost the link above, I really think that should clear things up, but what do I know... PalMDtalk 12:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

And, BTW, I think it is reasonable to debate the racism issue, but it is not a "done deal". Poor minority communities have less access to health care in general, and PP does provide needed services. I do not think their primary motivation is racist, however, it is an interesting point to discuss.--PalMDtalk 12:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

What I would like to see is a correlation being drawn. It is not enough to say "African-American communities have more Planned Parenthood operations, thus Planned Parenthood is trying to exterminate African-Americans." If I were to write that in a research essay, I think my stats professor would shoot me.--Elamdri 16:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

aborted babies pic source - I found substitute links. Problem solved

aborted babies pic source - I found substitute links. Problem solved Conservative 16:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Thank you Conservative! I really appreciate that!--Elamdri 16:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Miscellaneous Reply

Thanks for the good discussion above. I would like to respond to a few points here:

  • It's true, of course, that Planned Parenthood is a "non-profit" business so use of the word "profit" is problematic. But it is a huge business and the biggest provider of abortions in the United States. It makes a large excess of revenue over expenses, which we ordinarily call "profit". It is not a charity in the same sense as, for example, a church. Those "profits" of Planned Parenthood accrue to the benefit of its employees, its consultants, its allies and its doctors.
  • Only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood's services provide needed medical care to poor communities.
  • Planned Parenthood does target minority areas with advertisements for abortion that might be considered to be deceptive. I won't say that these advertisements are racist in intent, but they do have a disparate racial effect.
  • Virtually every woman who has an abortion is worse off in terms of her health. Childbirth is good for the health of the mother, and no one disputes that. Abortion has been linked to breast cancer (nearly every study has found a link, see abortion) and also to devastating premature birth (see also abortion).
  • Due in large part to Planned Parenthood's aggressive marketing in minority communities, African Americans have three times the abortion rate of whites, and three times the rate of premature births and associated devastating injuries. (I'm not sure how the breast cancer rate compares between African American and white women, but maybe someone else knows this.)

I'm not asking for specific changes to the content page, but it seems to me a skeptical look at what Planned Parenthood really does to make its millions of dollars is appropriate. Thanks.--Aschlafly 18:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, for the record, on the "abortion & cancer" stuff, the stats are correlated but causation is not implied, and any credible scientist would find that. I bet people who read this site are more likely than a carefully selected and retooled focus group to get breast cancer, too. Second, you should tell the mothers who died throughout history in childbirth that it's "good" for their health. Third, even if it is better for the health of the mother, it's not your call to force, in a paternalistic manner that most conservatives are opposed to, health decisions down their throat. Fourth, I think your use of "disparate impact" and "intent" rhetoric is insulting to constitutional law and misleading. However, let's jump on it to say that disparate impact never proves intent in modern constitutional law (cf. McClesky), so you should remove any language from the article that insinuates a discriminatory intent. Fifth, I thank God every day that I do not live in an America controlled by people like you. No offense intended, but this country is better for it.-AmesGyo! 18:37, 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. DrLib 18:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

No, it is that simple. Virtually every study has shown an increased risk. To say that birth increases a breast cancer risk for 5-15 years afterward is silly, because the rate of breast cancer for young women who have not had abortions is very small. That claim is simply playing tricks with statistics. There is a billion dollar industry and an army of politicians trying to tell women abortion doesn't increase breast cancer risk, just as was done for tobacco in the 1940s and 1950s. I'm not fooled, and don't want women to be either.
Check out the rates of abortion among African American women:

According to a 2003 CDC MMWR 'Surveillance Summary', the percent of

all U.S. IAs performed on Black-American-Women were:

1973 1983 1988 1993 1998 2001
27.5% 32.4% 31.1% 34.9% 35.5% 38.8%

--Aschlafly 21:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, you're going to have to explain what that pile of characters means, not just dump it on us and expect it to win for you.-AmesGyo! 21:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

It's simply wrong to say that almost all studies have shown that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer. I could easily list a bunch that say it's fact I have now listed on my talk page 24 studies that found no relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Murray 22:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Childbirth protects against breast cancer. No one, and I mean no one, credibly disputes that. The logical result is unmistakable: abortion, by eliminating childbirth, must increase breast cancer rates. 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies have shown an increase risk of breast cancer from abortion [9]. Countries having low abortion rates have relatively low breast cancer rates. See abortion.
Your denials of the link remind me of the denials orchestrated by the tobacco industry and its political allies in the 1950s and 1960s. Many people were misled then, and many women are being misled now. This issue has nothing to do with a woman's "right to choose," but with a woman's right to informed consent. Woman are getting breast cancer (and future born children are being born prematurely at a higher rate also) because of this. This illustrates that some advocates of abortion are not simply "pro-choice", but really are against informed consent when the issue is abortion.--Aschlafly 20:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
When did I say there's a link? My point is that it's unclear. Your statement that "16 out of 17 studies..." is either intentionally misleading or a flat-out lie. As I said above, I cited 24 studies on my talk page in which the findings were that there was not a statistically significant increase in risk from abortion. Did you bother to look at those? By my liberal math that's more than your 16 of 17. Also, I wouldn't dispute that childbirth is protective, but it doesn't logically follow that abortion increases risk over and above not ever having been pregnant. What I'm against is misinformed consent, and at this point it's utterly misleading, being generous, to tell a woman that if she has an abortion she is definitely at greater risk. Murray 14:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
That's what I'm saying! The whole problem with Liberals is that they censor everything they don't agree with. Otherwise they'd never be able to sell their bill of goods in the marketplace of ideas. --Ed Poor 22:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Very well put, Ed. Let everyone hear the facts without censorship by the tobacco companies and abortionists and others, and the marketplace of ideas delivers a very different result.--Aschlafly 23:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll credibly dispute that ... assuming childbirth really does protect against breast cancer, this in no way means an increase in breast cancer rates due to abortion. Chances are the rate would stay the same as not having babies at all. Saying the rate goes up is like saying that driving my car uses gas, but by not driving my car I will end up with more gas in the tank. Jrssr5 14:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)