Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-06-14T21:53:47Z

Conservinator:

{{Essay}}

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze [[liberal]] behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

# Liberals frequently deny the existence of practices or rules, even though the liberals defend the practice or rule. For example, liberals who deny that partial-birth abortion existed, even though they defended the practice. Why deny the existence of something that one defends? Liberals also deny that classroom prayer is prohibited, even though they defend the prohibition. Apparently liberals think their denial can deflect attention away from the indefensible.
# Liberals, particularly liberal vandals, seem to have a strong desire for attention. This may motivate many of their statements and arguments. Lacking motivation based on reason or faith, they seem to enjoy attracting attention for the mere sake of attention itself. The discussions and debates go nowhere, but their mission is accomplished by having someone pay attention to them.
# Many liberals think that two wrongs, or a wrong and perceived wrong, make a right. Specifically, they feel that vandalism can be justified by claiming that someone was wrongly excluded from a private association or private property. For example, one critic of Conservapedia declared on 5/22/07 that "[t]his site deserves at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives." Under the conservative view, nothing justifies vandalism and two wrongs do not make a right.
# Many liberals do not recognize vandalism as being wrong. Even some liberals who do recognize vandalism as being wrong do not think it is wrong to help others who commit vandalism.
# Liberals refuse to admit that people who were atheists or deists in their youth can find [[faith]] as they grow older. Examples include [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]], but liberals deny this.
# Liberals deny that their totalitarian positions, such supporting [[gun control]] or banning [[homeschooling]], were instrumental to [[Adolf Hitler]]'s power.
# Liberals seem to think nearly everyone else agrees with them, and even seem shocked and offended when they encounter someone who does not. In the United States, conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2:1 ratio, yet most liberals do not recognize that. Ask a liberal, for example, what percentage of people accept the [[Deluge]] as recounted in the Bible and the liberal's answer can be off by a factor of ten.
# Liberals are almost always more aggressive than conservatives here, as liberals insist on the last word, insist on continuing debate long after it has become tiresome, and repeat complaints after they have been rejected. That could represent an attempt to waste an opponent's time or a refusal to recognize that there are legitimate reasons to reject liberal viewpoints. Regardless of the reason, this can be observed on numerous talk pages.
# Liberals refuse to allow even the possibility of certain conservative views, and this reflects a liberal close-mindedness that is not shared by conservatives. Liberals categorically declare something to be impossible, such as changes in the laws of physics over time or the feasibility of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]. Conservatives rarely declare something to be impossible.
# Name-calling, particularly as a [[Parthian shot]], is overused by liberals. In one recent exchange, a critic finished his remarks with "you've just conceded that you are a deceitful liar. Thanks, that's all I needed to know."
# Almost no liberal admits he's liberal, or that he holds a liberal belief, or that he is using a liberal argument. More often a liberal will claim to be a conservative, and try to make a liberal argument sound better with the preface, "Well, I'm a conservative, but I support gun control!" But why are so many people embarrassed to admit they are liberal???
# A surprising absence of reliance on logic. Quite the contrary, logical arguments are often met with ridicule or disdain by liberals today, or a demand to see if any authority can be found who made the same logical argument, in the hope of discrediting that authority. In school 30 years ago it seemed that liberals would be the first to appeal to logic, but apparently not today.
# An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit. Liberal editors almost never criticized deceitful behavior as being "wrong". Liberals generally reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and oppose teaching them to children. Often liberal editors have defended or applauded deceitful behavior here. This is remniscent of [[Wikipedia]] co-founder Jimmy Wales offering Essjay a position ''after'' his misrepresentations were disclosed, until public criticism compelled Wales to change his mind.
# A preference for obscenity. Many liberal editors have complained about Commandment #3 in the [[rules]], which prohibits obscenity. Frequently liberal editors have introduced obscenity into Conservapedia despite the rules, often leading to blocking accounts. This is like Wikipedia's popular pages containing pornography, as described in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].
# Liberals make generalizations about conservatives.
# A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have complained 9 times more often than they have made a substantive addition, which violates the [[rule]] against 90% talk per 10% substantive edits. In some cases this has even necessitated blocking accounts.
# Strident objections to the point in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It is not that anyone (other than Jimmy Wales) attempts to deny that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Instead, liberal editors appear to object to ''quantifying'' it, particularly at a multiple of six. But why isn't that claim flattering to them? Conservatives would not object to a claim that they are __ times more conservative than such-and-such. Perhaps assigning a number to the bias makes it difficult for liberals to deny it exists.
# Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument.
# There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact. This can be done by citing a liberal advocate as an authority or by selectively invoking a liberal perception about what "most people think." This style of argument occurs too often, and too selectively, to reflect mere lack of intellectual rigor. It appears to be central to the liberal style of reasoning.
# Liberals often express decidedly liberal viewpoints as "common usage".

Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here.

Bill Clinton

2007-06-14T20:56:43Z

Conservinator:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:billclinton.jpg|200px|United States President Bill Clinton]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: indigo no-repeat scroll top left;"|Bill Clinton;
Forty-second President of the United States
|-
|Born
|August 19, 1946
|-
|Term
|1993-2000
|-
|}

'''William Jefferson''' "Bill" '''Clinton''' '''(August 19, 1946 - present)''' served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2000, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]]. His legacy was to teach our children that immoral sexual behavior is good.

== Early Life ==

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946 AD in Hope, Arkansas. His father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr. died in a car accident while his mother was pregnant with him. Clinton's mother later married Roger Clinton, and the four year-old William was given his stepfather's name.[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html]

Clinton was active in high school, participating in various student government organizations as well as playing the saxophone. Roger Clinton, however, made Bill's family life unpleasant by repeatedly abusing Clinton's mother and her children. Bill Clinton would eventually stand up to his stepfather in high school, forcing his stepfather to stop beating his mother and kicking him out of the house. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=50652] After Roger Clinton underwent alcohol rehabilitation, he would eventually rejoin the family.

Clinton attended [[Georgetown University]], then [[Oxford University]] after receiving a prestigious [[Rhodes Scholarship]]. He also then earned a Juris Doctorate from [[Yale University]] in 1973. At Yale he met [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary Rodham]], whom he would later marry [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html].

== Early Political Career ==

After returning to live in Arkansas, Clinton was elected [[Attorney General]] of Arkansas in 1976 AD. Two years later, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country as a 32 year-old. Though defeated in 1980 AD, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 AD and held it until becoming President in 1992 AD.

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court held Bill Clinton's state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the [[Voting Rights Act|Voting Rights Act of 1965]], 42 U.S.C. 1973. 1990 the [[Supreme Court]] of the United States found in the case of ''[[Clinton vs Jeffers]]'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> the former Arkansas Governeror and [[Democratic]] president had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Justices findings were,

{{Cquote|Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that "violations of the [[Fourteenth amendment|fourteenth]] or [[fifteenth amendment]] justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas."

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.}}

The court therefore concluded that

{{Cquote|This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of [[bigotry|racial motivation]] is inescapable.}}

== Presidency==
[[Image:Somalia.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Poster to end the "racist occupation of Somalia"; eighteen US soldiers were killed and some of their bodies were bodies were dragged through the streets, [http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_id=13022]]]
Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote versus President [[George H. W. Bush's]] 37%, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with Bush's proposed tax increases, and Ross Perot, a third candidate. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton was unable to "reform" health-care in the United States with a [[socialism| socialized]] health-care plan. It was a tough sell in the wake of the collapse of Soviet Bloc only a few years earlier. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy.{{fact}} The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee financing, expenses and membership. The program ultimately became so unpopular after two years the Democratically controlled Congress shielded its members records by never bringing it to floor for a vote.

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of a Congress controlled by Democrats by giving a victory to Republicans in Congress. This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," and began a series of showdowns with the Republican-led Congress.{{fact}} These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government as Reagan had done in the 1980s. Clinton did not back down, however, and eventually had his budget passed [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint082800d.html]. This showdown backfired for the Republicans, as it reinvigorated Clinton's flagging approval ratings. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Clinton_approval_rating.JPG].

In late 1995, President Clinton dispatched some 20,000 U.S. troops to [[Bosnia]].

Clinton was reelected in 1996 and carried 49.2% of the popular vote against Republican candidate ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]), who won 41%, and "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]], who won 8%. Clinton spent a lot of the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. A special prosecutor's report was not released until well into Clinton's second term, and brought documented Clinton giving false testimony in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit while President which resulted in his impeachment and disbarment from the legal profession.{{fact}} The main charge was that he had committed perjury in a civil suit. The perjured testimony directly related to an attempt to defraud the plainitff of damages. The Senate failed to make clear what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. <ref>[http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/lieberman.shtml Statement by Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut)], Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.</ref>,

During Clinton's presidency the [[terrorist]] group [[al-Qaeda]] conducted the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, simulataneous bombings of the US embassies in [[Kenya]] and [[Tanzania]] in 1998, and the attack on the [[USS Cole]] in 2000. Terrorist leader [[Osama bin Laden]] <ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for Bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998.</ref> issued two public [[fatwa]]s declaring War on America. <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm Bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> In the 1998 fatwa <ref>Bernard Lewis, [http://www.msu.edu/course/iss/325/stein/read-325-3.htm#Lewis License to Kill], Foreign Affairs, November/December 1998.</ref> bin Laden told ''[[Jihad|jihadist]]s'' worldwide,

{{Cquote|Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by [[Allah]] and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, [[Aden]] and [[Mogadishu]]. <ref>[http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097mohamedinterview&scale=0#a1097mohamedinterview October 1997: [[Ali Mohamed]] Tells FBI He Helped Al-Qaeda Kill US Soldiers, But FBI Takes No Action]</ref>}}

Bin Laden told ''ABC News'' at the time, "We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets." <ref>The 9-11 Commission Report, [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf2. The Foundation of the New Terrorism], Official Government Edition, GPO, 2004.</ref>

Suspicions often arose during Clinton's tenure about the timing of [[cruise missile]] attacks to manipulate public sympathy at crucial points when his approval ratings sagged. On several occassions <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y= The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism], Byron York, ''National Review Online'', September 11, 2006. </ref> generally when the approval ratings dipped to 47%, surprise cruise missile attacks <ref>[http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/21/wwwh8d21.html Airstrikes Against Iraq: 'What Happens Now?'], U.S. Information Agency ''Daily Digest'', December 21, 1998. </ref> where launched which resulted in a 10 point gain in the public opinion polls. Nick Gillespie of ''Reason'' remarked,
{{Cquote|Consider, for instance, the relative lack of scrutiny accorded the August 20 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and [[Sudan]] … immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president's sex life… the Sudanese bombing suggests something else as well: If and when the public's and the media's attention shifts from the president's sex life to wider-ranging inquiries about how he makes deadly serious policy decisions…" <ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/30827.html Bombs Away - Troubling questions about the U.S. attack on Sudan], ''Reason'', December 1998. </ref>}}

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. Portions regarding civil rights remedies were later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

== Whitewater Affair ==

His close personal business partnerships with James McDougall in a failed Savings and Loan business venture lead to investigation of the [[Whitewater]] affair. Several of the people involved with the sale of land prior to the Clinton presidency were indicted, but the Clintons were never charged with a crime.{{fact}}

== Impeachment ==

On Aug. 17, 1998, after relentless media attention, leaks, and news of Lewinsky's upcoming testimony, Clinton made history by becoming the first U.S. president to testify in front of a grand jury in an investigation of his own possibly criminal conduct. In an address to the nation, he admitted to having had an "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky, but reaffirmed that he did not ask anyone to lie about or cover up the affair.

[[Kenneth Starr]], the special prosecutor in the case, pursued the matter.

Clinton became the second sitting president to be impeached by the US House of Representatives. During his second term Clinton was accused of perjury in connection to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. The US Senate voted to acquit him. He later lost his law license in Arkansas.

It was during this scandal that Clinton famously stated: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2525000/2525339.stm</ref>.

== After the Presidency ==

Clinton has spent much of time since leaving office working for charitable causes such as support and fund-raising for the victims of AIDS and the Asian tsunami. In the case of the Indonesian tsunami, he teamed with former president [[George H.W. Bush]] to raise money for relief efforts.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], was elected Senator to New York in 2000. Reelected in 2006, she is now seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.

Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff was John Podesta between 1998-2001.

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Bill}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Totalitarian state

2007-06-14T20:50:47Z

Conservinator:

A totalitarian state is a state in which the government rules all aspects, both public and private, of its citizen's lives. Examples of totalitarian states in recent history include the U.S.S.R., North Korea, or [[Saparmurat Niyazov]]'s regime in [[Turkmenistan]] and Canada during a brief period under the rule of Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s.

Lamarck

2007-06-14T20:48:47Z

Conservinator:

Jean Baptiste Lamarck was the first scientist to come up with the idea of evolution (though a different version than [[Darwin]]'s).

Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet was born in the village of Bazentin-le-Petit in the north of France, on August 1, 1744. He was the youngest of eleven children in a family with a centuries-old tradition of military service; his father and several of his brothers were soldiers.

The young Lamarck entered the Jesuit seminary at Amiens around 1756, but not long after his father's death, Lamarck rode off to join the French army campaigning in Germany in the summer of 1761; in his first battle, he distinguished himself for bravery under fire and was promoted to officer.

After peace was declared in 1763, Lamarck spent five years on garrison duty in the south of France, until an accidental injury forced him to leave the army. After working as a bank clerk in Paris for a while, Lamarck began to study medicine and botany, at which he rapidly became expert; in 1778 his book on the plants of France, ''Flore Française'', was published to great acclaim, in part thanks to the support of [[Buffon]].

On the strength of ''Flore Française'', Lamarck was made assistant botanist at the royal botanical garden, the Jardin des Plantes. In 1793, his became the ''Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle'' (National Museum of Natural History). This institution boasted 12 professors in 12 different scientific fields. Lamarck was
appointed professor of the natural history of [[insects]] and [[worms]], something he knew nothing about at the time! It was also seen as the lowliest position, since few naturalists of the 18th Century considered [[insects]] and [[worms]] worthy of study.

Lamarck, however, proved equal to the task and was responsible for coining the term [[''Invertebrate'']]. In effect, he created a whole new field of [[biology]] with his studies. In 1803, after 10 years of study, he lectured his students that:

''we perceive that, relative to the animal kingdom, we should chiefly devote our attention to the [[invertebrate animals]], because their enormous multiplicity in nature, the singular diversity of their systems of organization, and of their means of multiplication, . . . , show us, much better than the higher animals, the true course of nature, and the means which she has used and which she still unceasingly employs to give existence to all the living bodies of which we have knowledge.''

Lamarck published a series of books on [[invertebrate]] [[zoology]] and [[paleontology]]. Of these, ''Philosophie zoologique'', published in 1809, most clearly states Lamarck's theories of [[evolution]]. The first volume of ''Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans vertèbres'' was published in 1815, the second in 1822. Aside from Lamarck's contributions to evolutionary theory, his works on invertebrates represent a great advance over existing classifications; he was the first to separate the [[Crustacea]], [[Arachnida]], and [[Annelida]] from the [[Insecta.]] His classification of the mollusks was far in advance of anything proposed previously; Lamarck broke with tradition in removing the [[tunicates]] and the [[barnacles]] from the [[Mollusca]]. He also anticipated the work of [[Schleiden & Schwann]] in [[cell theory]] in stating that:

''no body can have life if its constituent parts are not cellular tissue or are not formed by cellular tissue.''

Lamarck even found time to write papers on [[physics]] and [[meteorology]], including some annual compilations of [[weather]] data.

''' How does Lamark's theory differ from Darwin's?'''

The difference is mostly semantic. In basic terms, Lamarck thought that the way an animal behaved during its life could affect the form of its offspring. [[Darwin]] meanwhile thought that an individual animal might have a characteristic that gave it an advantage over other individuals of the same [[species]], meaning that it would be more successful in reproduction.

The best example to illustrate this is in considering how the [[giraffe]] came to have a long neck.

'''Lamarck's''' theory suggests that [[giraffe]]s developed a long neck because the animals constantly stretched upwards to reach the highest leaves while it was feeding. As a consequence of this, its young were born with longer necks.

'''Darwin's''' theory suggests that [[giraffe]]s developed as they did because an animal with a longer than average neck would have an advantage in reaching foliage that its shorter-necked fellows could not. Therefore it would be healthier, more successful in breeding and hence more likely to pass on its long-necked genes.

While Lamarck's theories were tossed out relatively quickly, Darwin's are proving more stubborn, but are losing traction every day among serious scientists.

Rapture

2007-04-10T17:10:43Z

Conservinator:

The '''Rapture''' (first proposed by the [[United Kingdom|British]] preacher John Nelson Darby in the mid-19th century) is believed by genuine Christians to be an event that will take place sometime in the future. The theory of the rapture is derived from the [[Bible]], specifically, but not limited to, the [[book of Revelation]], the last book of the Bible. The belief is that [[Jesus]] will return to earth, gather up the believers, and then return to Heaven with the Church.<ref>1 Thessalonians 4:13-18</ref>

Some evangelical commentators suggest that the following events need to occur for the Rapture to take place:
* The countries of the world must have the same currency.
* Peace in [[Israel]]<ref>Ezekiel 38</ref>
* One World Government, like the Revelation's 7th beast.
* Jerusalem must rebuild the Jewish temple.
* The Jewish people must control [[Israel]].
* The [[Antichrist]] must be walking the earth in human form.

The website 'Rapture Ready'<ref>[http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html Rapture Ready]</ref> maintains an index of how close we are claimed to be to the Rapture.

Once these conditions have been met, and a [[cow|red heifer]] has been sacrificed in the [[Temple of Solomon]], [[Jesus]] will rise once again to wipe away the sinful world and reward all the faithful.{{fact}}

There is some debate in such circles over whether the Rapture will occur before, during or after the reign of the [[Antichrist]], but the original reference by St [[Paul]] to the faithful being 'caught up into the clouds' at I Thessalonians 4:17 clearly dates it to the time of the [[Second Coming]], and does not suggest in any way that it will result in Christians being spared in advance the horrors of the [[Last Times]], as is sometimes proposed. Matthew 24:29-31 seems to favor the post-tribulation position, however. (Immediately after the tribulation of those days...they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.)

* [[Premillennial Dispensationalism]]<ref>[http://www.nyu.edu/fas/projects/vcb/ChristianMedia/prophecy_premdisp.html]</ref>
* [[Postmillennial Dispensationalism]]
* [[Midmillennial Dispensationalism]]

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==

* Armstrong, K., ''The Battle for God'' (Harper Perennial, 2000)
* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Las Vegas

2007-03-22T21:37:41Z

Conservinator:

Las Vegas is a city in [[Nevada]], famous for its casinos.

In pre-Christian times, Las Vegas was occupied by the Paiute Indians. It was founded by Mormons in the early 20th century, and remained a small settlement until [[Bugsy Siegel]] built the first casinos there. Now it is one of the fastest-growing cities in the [[USA]].

It's a clear example that while immorality may make you money, you will still be out in the desert without God.

Talk:Angela Merkel

2007-03-22T21:35:52Z

Conservinator: /* Atheism */

==Atheism==
The GDR (not to be mixed with the Federal Republic of Germany, known nowadays as 'Germany') disapproved Religion in any form. If she would have been a christian she would never had the possibility to study there. But I have to admit that I do not have a source at hand.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 05:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

How can she be part of a Christian party but not be Christian? That doesn't seem right (but I don't have proof either way).

The Descent of Man

2007-03-22T21:34:50Z

Conservinator:

Charles Darwin wrote ''Descent of Man'' in 1871.

A quote from the work reads:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate the savage races throughout the world ... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
</blockquote>

Many believe the [[Theory of Evolution|evolutionary ideas]] have contributed to racism<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref>.
In fact, anthropologists now discount any true defining characteristics of different races of humans, which clearly indicates that we all descended from the first humans, Adam and Eve.

== References ==
<references />

Mayflower

2007-03-22T21:32:04Z

Conservinator:

The Mayflower was one of the first ships to sail and bring good Christians from England to what was then the colonies. The ship's passengers made the [[Mayflower Compact]], a set of laws they would follow upon landing in America.

Lamarck

2007-03-22T21:31:10Z

Conservinator:

Jean Baptiste Lamarck was the first scientist to come up with the idea of evolution (though a different version than [[Darwin]]'s).

Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet was born in the village of Bazentin-le-Petit in the north of France, on August 1, 1744. He was the youngest of eleven children in a family with a centuries-old tradition of military service; his father and several of his brothers were soldiers.

The young Lamarck entered the Jesuit seminary at Amiens around 1756, but not long after his father's death, Lamarck rode off to join the French army campaigning in Germany in the summer of 1761; in his first battle, he distinguished himself for bravery under fire and was promoted to officer.

After peace was declared in 1763, Lamarck spent five years on garrison duty in the south of France, until an accidental injury forced him to leave the army. After working as a bank clerk in Paris for a while, Lamarck began to study medicine and botany, at which he rapidly became expert; in 1778 his book on the plants of France, ''Flore Française'', was published to great acclaim, in part thanks to the support of [[Buffon]].

On the strength of ''Flore Française'', Lamarck was made assistant botanist at the royal botanical garden, the Jardin des Plantes. In 1793, his became the ''Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle'' (National Museum of Natural History). This institution boasted 12 professors in 12 different scientific fields. Lamarck was
appointed professor of the natural history of [[insects]] and [[worms]], something he knew nothing about at the time! It was also seen as the lowliest position, since few naturalists of the 18th Century considered [[insects]] and [[worms]] worthy of study.

Lamarck, however, proved equal to the task and was responsible for coining the term [[''Invertebrate'']]. In effect, he created a whole new field of [[biology]] with his studies. In 1803, after 10 years of study, he lectured his students that:

''we perceive that, relative to the animal kingdom, we should chiefly devote our attention to the [[invertebrate animals]], because their enormous multiplicity in nature, the singular diversity of their systems of organization, and of their means of multiplication, . . . , show us, much better than the higher animals, the true course of nature, and the means which she has used and which she still unceasingly employs to give existence to all the living bodies of which we have knowledge.''

Lamarck published a series of books on [[invertebrate]] [[zoology]] and [[paleontology]]. Of these, ''Philosophie zoologique'', published in 1809, most clearly states Lamarck's theories of [[evolution]]. The first volume of ''Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans vertèbres'' was published in 1815, the second in 1822. Aside from Lamarck's contributions to evolutionary theory, his works on invertebrates represent a great advance over existing classifications; he was the first to separate the [[Crustacea]], [[Arachnida]], and [[Annelida]] from the [[Insecta.]] His classification of the mollusks was far in advance of anything proposed previously; Lamarck broke with tradition in removing the [[tunicates]] and the [[barnacles]] from the [[Mollusca]]. He also anticipated the work of [[Schleiden & Schwann]] in [[cell theory]] in stating that:

''no body can have life if its constituent parts are not cellular tissue or are not formed by cellular tissue.''

Lamarck even found time to write papers on [[physics]] and [[meteorology]], including some annual compilations of [[weather]] data.

''' How does Lamark's theory differ from Darwin's?'''

In basic terms, Lamarck thought that the way an animal behaved during its life could affect the form of its offspring. [[Darwin]] meanwhile thought that an individual animal might have a characteristic that gave it an advantage over other individuals of the same [[species]], meaning that it would be more successful in reproduction.

The best example to illustrate this is in considering how the [[giraffe]] came to have a long neck.

'''Lamarck's''' theory suggests that [[giraffe]]s developed a long neck because the animals constantly stretched upwards to reach the highest leaves while it was feeding. As a consequence of this, its young were born with longer necks.

'''Darwin's''' theory suggests that [[giraffe]]s developed as they did because an animal with a longer than average neck would have an advantage in reaching foliage that its shorter-necked fellows could not. Therefore it would be healthier, more successful in breeding and hence more likely to pass on its long-necked genes.

While Lamarck's theories were tossed out relatively quickly, Darwin's are proving more stubborn, but are losing traction every day among serious scientists.

Evolutionist

2007-02-23T21:53:46Z

Conservinator: fixed a liberal vandal's edit.

"Evolutionist" is a derogatory term used by Creationists to refer to Atheists. Evolutionists believe that they are related to monkeys. While this may be true for them, the rest of us have descended from Adam and Eve.

Unicorn

2007-02-23T18:47:54Z

Conservinator:

The existence of unicorns is a controversy. Clearly they don't exist now, but they may have roamed the earth prior to the Great Flood <ref>http://www.learnthebible.org/q-a-identity-of-the-unicorn.htm</ref>. Noah either didn't find space for them on the Ark, or for some reason, decided to leave them behind.

Vaccine

2007-02-23T16:22:48Z

Conservinator: expanded on older vs. newer vaccines

A weakened or inactive version of a pathogen that stimulates the body's production of antibodies which can destroy the pathogen.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.

2000</ref>. Older vaccines got rid of smallpox and polio, which was good. Newer vaccines are being used against sexually transmitted diseases, which raises more difficult ethical issues like should children get a vaccine that will encourage them to behave irresponsibly? It's a difficult question.

==References==
<references/>

Abortion

2007-02-23T15:55:43Z

Conservinator:

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|A human being before birth.]]
The word '''abortion,''' in connection with pregnancy, can be defined as "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]</ref> Thus, the word includes miscarriage, but commonly refers to ''induced'' abortion; that is, the intentional performance of a procedure which causes the death of a living organism. Most Christian conservatives regard human life as beginning at conception and consider abortion to be the murder of innocent babies while in the womb of their mother.

Abortion is a controversial topic in the United States. Prior to 1973 it was illegal, usually criminal, and considered to be serious medical misconduct. The [[The United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are permissible, as a woman's choice, up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb. This is one of the earliest examples of [[Judicial Activism]].

==Abortion and Breast Cancer==
The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This may be due to the profitability of selling fetal parts for Chinese medicine <ref>http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm</ref> or for scientific research labs <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html</ref>,<ref>http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247</ref> or this may be due to the controversy around this finding, which suggests that data linking abortion to increased breast cancer risk is not yet conclusive.<ref>http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/abortion.asp</ref> Some of the reasons for the difficulty in verifying these studies include:

:The number of cases observed; a very small number may not be reflective of the general population)
:The type of abortion: induced versus spontaneous (also called miscarriages)
:Accounting for other lifestyle or genetic factors that may influence breast cancer risk
:The amount of time between abortion and breast cancer occurrence
:Data limitations due to the changing legal status of abortion (for example, an American woman’s abortion history may not have been reported before 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion).
:Recall bias (women may not accurately report their reproductive history)
:Emotional and/or socio-political factors

==Political Action Committees==
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.<ref>http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html</ref>. EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

:providing health information to abortion patients;

:requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and

:providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.

The most powerful of the pro-life political action committees is 100% Pro-Life PAC.<ref>http://www.prolifepac.com/</ref> This organization is opposed to abortion being performed in any situation - this includes situations where the life of the mother is at stake, where there woman has been raped, or where the child is a product of incest. Consequently, the make donations only to politicians who promise to work to outlaw abortion in any form, regardless of medical need.

Those who support abortion insist upon terms like "fetus" -- seemingly to minimize the humanity of unborn infants. Biblical references indicate that the person exists in the womb and pro-lifers use the term "unborn babies."

==References==
<references/>

Massachusetts liberal

2007-02-23T15:51:15Z

Conservinator:

A [[Liberal]] from Massachusetts. Generally, they want to throw out all rules of God, and live like animals. Often they are also evolutionists.

Homosexuality

2007-02-23T15:45:15Z

Conservinator: Human beings are not animals. Undoing edits by a liberal evolution monger.

Homosexuality is an unnatural sexual orientation found in human beings. In general, homosexuality is described as a sexual attraction towards a member of one's own sex/gender.

== Biblical Views on Homosexuality ==

In the book of Leviticus (18:22) of the King James Version of the Bible is found the following verse:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.''

This has been interpreted by many to be a condemnation of homosexual activity.

== Modern Views on Homosexuality ==

The American Psychiatric Association de-listed homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, indicating their blatant liberal bias.[http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html] Since that time, homosexuals have advocated for recognition of their civil rights and for equal protection under the law, though fortunately the American people have mostly retained their senses on this.

Legal marriage between same-sex couples is now recognized in several socialist European nations as well as in the liberal-oriented State of Massachusetts (see [[Massachusetts Liberal]]). In other states a more limited recognition of same-sex relationships is available and is called a "civil union". Many other states have passed constitutional amendments banning recognition of same-sex marriages performed anywhere and some groups on the far right advocate for a Federal amendment to deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Homosexuality

2007-02-23T15:43:44Z

Conservinator: Human beings are not animals. Undoing edits by a liberal evolution monger.

Homosexuality is an unnatural sexual orientation found in human beings. In general, homosexuality is described as a sexual attraction towards a member of one's own sex/gender.

== Biblical Views on Homosexuality ==

In the book of Leviticus (18:22) of the King James Version of the Bible is found the following verse:

''Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.''

This has been interpreted by many to be a condemnation of homosexual activity.

== Modern Views on Homosexuality ==

The American Psychiatric Association de-listed homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, indicating their blatant liberal bias.[http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html] Since that time, homosexuals have advocated for recognition of their civil rights and for equal protection under the law, though fortunately the American people have mostly retained their senses on this.

Legal marriage between same-sex couples is now recognized in several socialist European nations as well as in the liberal-oriented State of Massachusetts (see [[Massacusetts Liberal]]). In other states a more limited recognition of same-sex relationships is available and is called a "civil union". Many other states have passed constitutional amendments banning recognition of same-sex marriages performed anywhere and some groups on the far right advocate for a Federal amendment to deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Judicial Activism

2007-02-23T15:33:42Z

Conservinator: more clearly referenced earlier point

There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system:
 
1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values 
2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values
 
The most famous example of this is [[Roe v. Wade]]. Other examples include Brown v Board of Education which stripped state powers of control over education and put them in the hands of the federal government <ref>Deseret News, Aug. 22 2006[http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645195135,00.html]</ref>, McCreary County v. ACLU in which judges stripped free speech and religious freedom from McCreary County <ref>Supreme Court of the United States[http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZS.html]</ref>, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court sided with terrorists over the protection of the United States of America. <ref>FOX News June 29, 2006[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201530,00.html]</ref> and Schiavo v. Schiavo, in which judges ordered the death of an innocent handicapped woman so that her husband could take her money (a clear violation of the core conservative American value of right to life) <ref>http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/</ref>.

<references/>

Velociraptor

2007-02-23T14:51:28Z

Conservinator: entry stub for my favorite dinosaur

The velociraptor is a small, carnivorous dinosaur featured in the fictional movie "Jurassic Park". In the movie, they make a showing due to atheist genetic engineers tinkering with God's creation. Most of these scientists get eaten for their sin.

The velociraptor is currently extinct, due to the Great Flood <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/exploring.html</ref>. It's not clear why they didn't make it onto the Ark, but it's possible that Noah worried that they would eat the zebras.

Liberal

2007-02-23T13:08:34Z

Conservinator:

A liberal in the early 1800s in Europe was one who favored more powerful elected assemblies. The term was common in France shortly after the French Revolution. Modern liberals are treasonous <ref>http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/coultertreason.php</ref> and generally hate America <ref>http://www.conservativemonitor.com/opinion03/52.shtml</ref>.

Or let's try reality from:

American Heritage Dictionary -
lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
5. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
6. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
7. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
8. Obsolete political system; Morally unrestrained; licentious.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
4. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.

1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

"liberal." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 22 Feb. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

Definition #8 is the most relevant in modern times.

Judicial Activism

2007-02-23T04:27:30Z

Conservinator: adding another court case

There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system:
 
1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values 
2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values
 
The most famous example of this is [[Roe v. Wade]]. Other examples include Brown v Board of Education which stripped state powers of control over education and put them in the hands of the federal government <ref>Deseret News, Aug. 22 2006[http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645195135,00.html]</ref>, McCreary County v. ACLU in which judges stripped free speech and religious freedom from McCreary County <ref>Supreme Court of the United States[http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZS.html]</ref> and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court sided with terrorists over the protection of the United States of America. <ref>FOX News June 29, 2006[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201530,00.html]</ref> and that case where the judge decided to murder poor Terry Schiavo, just because she was in a wheelchair.
==References==
<references/>

Lamarck

2007-02-22T23:44:17Z

Conservinator: intro stub to Lamarck

Jean Baptiste Lamarck was the first scientist to come up with the idea of evolution (though a different version than [[Darwin]]'s). Lamarck suggested that giraffes got long necks by stretching to reach trees, when clearly they got long necks because [[God]] wanted them to be long. Lamarck is now an object of derision amongst scientists, much like Darwin will be in a year or two.

Stephen Colbert

2007-02-22T22:59:45Z

Conservinator: clarifying that Colbert is *not* conservative

'''Stephen Colbert''' is a writer and actor. In his Comedy Central show, "The Colbert Report" (pronounced cole-BEAR re-POR) he pretends to be a Bush supporter and uses this stance to poke ironic fun at the Bush administration. I don't think he actually supports Bush, but is making fun of us.

He coined the word "truthiness" to refer to the quality possessed statements which, though factually false, are repeated by supporters who feel in their hearts that they ''ought'' to be true, and regard it as quibbling to object to their falsehood; Creationists, Neo-Conservatives, Bush supporters, and many others are proponents of this style of thinking.

Colbert has poked fun at Wikipedia and its apparent democratization of truth, and caused trouble for Wikipedia by suggesting that his listeners alter articles.

Evolutionist

2007-02-22T22:43:40Z

Conservinator:

Evolutionists believe that they are related to monkeys. While this may be true for them, the rest of us have descended from Adam and Eve.

HIV

2007-02-22T21:08:48Z

Conservinator: adding notes to unmarried youths

HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. It is transmitted primarily through sexual contact and intravenous drug use [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16623627&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum].

HIV is thought to cause AIDS, though this is still under debate <ref>http://www.duesberg.com/</ref>.

The only way to stay safe from HIV is to wait until after marriage to have [[sex]]. [[Liberal]]s promote the dangerous myth that you can protect yourself from HIV by using condoms, but condoms have an enormous failure rate.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-02-22T19:41:58Z

Conservinator:

Global warming is a controversial theory that claims that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) due to industrialization is causing temperatures to increase around the world, to the detriment of our environment. Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of this theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:
:The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref>

[[Liberal]]s would like to see the economy of America destroyed by forcing us to drive solar cars to work, and use geothermal energy to heat our homes. Global warming is merely a thinly-veiled liberal attempt to destroy capitalism.

----

'''References:''' <references/>

Eugenics

2007-02-22T19:34:52Z

Conservinator:

Eugenics is the practise of improving or altering a race through selective breeding. The [[Nazis]] were in favour of eugenics, and [[Richard Dawkins]] has recently called for society's negative view of it to be questioned. Eugenics is proof that scientists who are Darwinists should be carefully watched.

Liberal

2007-02-22T19:28:19Z

Conservinator: properly referenced points about modern liberalism

Abortion

2007-02-22T17:49:47Z

Conservinator: I've added explanation in the talk section, I hope we can keep this in here, people deserve to know

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|A human being before birth.]]
The word '''abortion,''' in connection with pregnancy, can be defined as "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]</ref> Thus, the word includes miscarriage, but commonly refers to ''induced'' abortion; that is, the intentional performance of a procedure which causes the death of a living organism. Most Christian conservatives regard human life as beginning at conception and consider abortion to be the murder of innocent babies while in the womb of their mother.

Abortion is a controversial topic in the United States. Prior to 1973 it was illegal, usually criminal, and considered to be serious medical misconduct. The [[The United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are permissible, as a woman's choice, up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb.

==Abortion and Breast Cancer==
The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This may be due to the profitability of selling fetal parts for Chinese medicine <ref>http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm</ref> or for scientific research labs <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html</ref>,<ref>http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247</ref> or this may be due to the controversy around this finding, which suggests that data linking abortion to increased breast cancer risk is not yet conclusive.<ref>http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/abortion.asp</ref> Some of the reasons for the difficulty in verifying these studies include:

:The number of cases observed; a very small number may not be reflective of the general population)
:The type of abortion: induced versus spontaneous (also called miscarriages)
:Accounting for other lifestyle or genetic factors that may influence breast cancer risk
:The amount of time between abortion and breast cancer occurrence
:Data limitations due to the changing legal status of abortion (for example, an American woman’s abortion history may not have been reported before 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion).
:Recall bias (women may not accurately report their reproductive history)
:Emotional and/or socio-political factors

==Political Action Committees==
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.<ref>http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html</ref>. EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

:providing health information to abortion patients;

:requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and

:providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.

The most powerful of the pro-life political action committees is 100% Pro-Life PAC.<ref>http://www.prolifepac.com/</ref> This organization is opposed to abortion being performed in any situation - this includes situations where the life of the mother is at stake, where there woman has been raped, or where the child is a product of incest. Consequently, the make donations only to politicians who promise to work to outlaw abortion in any form, regardless of medical need.

Those who support abortion insist upon terms like "fetus" -- seemingly to minimize the humanity of unborn infants. Biblical references indicate that the person exists in the womb and pro-lifers use the term "unborn babies."

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Abortion

2007-02-22T17:42:52Z

Conservinator:

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''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 "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

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:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

: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.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: 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)

:: 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)

: 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 "most" 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)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''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:

:::''"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." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::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.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" 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:

:::"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." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::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)

::: 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 "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" 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.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "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." 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)

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)

: 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 "twisted." (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)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" 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 "birth" and "and the child came out" 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 "analysis". 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 "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

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 "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" 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.</blockquote>

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" 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 - "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." 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)

:: 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)
::: '''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)

:::: '''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)

:::: 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)

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)

: 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]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

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 ...

if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''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.

if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''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.

if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" 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.

:'''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.

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.
-Neurocat

:'''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)

==Additional Information==
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)

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

Talk:Abortion

2007-02-22T17:36:29Z

Conservinator: profitability of abortion

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''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 "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

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:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

: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.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: 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)

:: 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)

: 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 "most" 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)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''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:

:::''"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." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::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.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" 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:

:::"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." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::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)

::: 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 "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" 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.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "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." 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)

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)

: 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 "twisted." (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)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" 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 "birth" and "and the child came out" 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 "analysis". 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 "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

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 "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" 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.</blockquote>

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" 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 - "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." 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)

:: 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)
::: '''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)

:::: '''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)

:::: 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)

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)

: 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]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

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 ...

if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''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.

if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''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.

if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" 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.

:'''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.

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.
-Neurocat

:'''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)

==Additional Information==
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)

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

Abortion

2007-02-22T16:53:11Z

Conservinator:

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|A human being before birth.]]
The word '''abortion,''' in connection with pregnancy, can be defined as "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]</ref> Thus, the word includes miscarriage, but commonly refers to ''induced'' abortion; that is, the intentional performance of a procedure which causes the death of a living organism. Most Christian conservatives regard human life as beginning at conception and consider abortion to be the murder of innocent babies while in the womb of their mother.

Abortion is a controversial topic in the United States. Prior to 1973 it was illegal, usually criminal, and considered to be serious medical misconduct. The [[The United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are permissible, as a woman's choice, up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb.

==Abortion and Breast Cancer==
The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This may be due to the profitability of selling fetal tissue <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html</ref> or it may be due to the controversy around this finding, which suggests that data linking abortion to increased breast cancer risk is not yet conclusive.<ref>http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/abortion.asp</ref> Some of the reasons for the difficulty in verifying these studies include:

:The number of cases observed; a very small number may not be reflective of the general population)
:The type of abortion: induced versus spontaneous (also called miscarriages)
:Accounting for other lifestyle or genetic factors that may influence breast cancer risk
:The amount of time between abortion and breast cancer occurrence
:Data limitations due to the changing legal status of abortion (for example, an American woman’s abortion history may not have been reported before 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion).
:Recall bias (women may not accurately report their reproductive history)
:Emotional and/or socio-political factors

==Political Action Committees==
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.<ref>http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html</ref>. EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

:providing health information to abortion patients;

:requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and

:providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.

The most powerful of the pro-life political action committees is 100% Pro-Life PAC.<ref>http://www.prolifepac.com/</ref> This organization is opposed to abortion being performed in any situation - this includes situations where the life of the mother is at stake, where there woman has been raped, or where the child is a product of incest. Consequently, the make donations only to politicians who promise to work to outlaw abortion in any form, regardless of medical need.

Those who support abortion insist upon terms like "fetus" -- seemingly to minimize the humanity of unborn infants. Biblical references indicate that the person exists in the womb and pro-lifers use the term "unborn babies."

==References==
<references/>

Liberal

2007-02-22T16:37:50Z

Conservinator:

A liberal in the early 1800s in Europe was one who favored more powerful elected assemblies. The term was common in France shortly after the French Revolution. Since the 1980s, however, it has been taken to mean anyone who hates America.

Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T16:33:20Z

Conservinator:

[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin]]
Charles Darwin was born in [[England]] to a Christian family on February 12, [[1809]]. He was a significant figure in the development of the theory of evolution. After touring the [[Galapagos Islands]] and studying the animals that lived there, he came up with his theory of [[natural selection]] and published [[''The Origin of Species'']] in [[1859]]. He recanted his theory on his deathbed, begging the forgiveness of God.

Homosexuality

2007-02-22T16:31:49Z

Conservinator:

synonym: Abomination

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such thing is an abomination.

Abortion

2007-02-22T16:26:19Z

Conservinator: /* Abortion and Breast Cancer */

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|A human being before birth.]]
The word '''abortion,''' in connection with pregnancy, can be defined as "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]</ref> Thus, the word includes miscarriage, but commonly refers to ''induced'' abortion; that is, the intentional performance of a procedure which causes the death of a living organism. Most Christian conservatives regard human life as beginning at conception and consider abortion to be the murder of innocent babies while in the womb of their mother.

Abortion is a controversial topic in the United States. Prior to 1973 it was illegal, usually criminal, and considered to be serious medical misconduct. The [[The United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]<ref>Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]</ref> decision ruled that abortions are permissible, as a woman's choice, up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb.

==Abortion and Breast Cancer==
The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public because they can profit from the sale of aborted fetuses for use in traditional Chinese medicine. This may be due to the controversy around this finding, which suggests that data linking abortion to increased breast cancer risk is not yet conclusive.<ref>http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/abortion.asp</ref> Some of the reasons for the difficulty in verifying these studies include:

:The number of cases observed; a very small number may not be reflective of the general population)
:The type of abortion: induced versus spontaneous (also called miscarriages)
:Accounting for other lifestyle or genetic factors that may influence breast cancer risk
:The amount of time between abortion and breast cancer occurrence
:Data limitations due to the changing legal status of abortion (for example, an American woman’s abortion history may not have been reported before 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion).
:Recall bias (women may not accurately report their reproductive history)
:Emotional and/or socio-political factors

==Political Action Committees==
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.<ref>http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html</ref>. EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

:providing health information to abortion patients;

:requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and

:providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.

The most powerful of the pro-life political action committees is 100% Pro-Life PAC.<ref>http://www.prolifepac.com/</ref> This organization is opposed to abortion being performed in any situation - this includes situations where the life of the mother is at stake, where there woman has been raped, or where the child is a product of incest. Consequently, the make donations only to politicians who promise to work to outlaw abortion in any form, regardless of medical need.

Those who support abortion insist upon terms like "fetus" -- seemingly to minimize the humanity of unborn infants. Biblical references indicate that the person exists in the womb and pro-lifers use the term "unborn babies."

==References==
<references/>