Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T05:30:58Z

HMayo:

== Let's just pause for a minute ==

Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

It is inaccurate to say that an abortionist is someone who necessarily profits from abortion. It might well usually be so but it not necessarily so. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: It's factual. Abortion is a profitable business, and there are no volunteer abortionists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: I understand that. But it has not always been so. Abortion has a long history and the procedure has not always been in the hands of trained (and paid) medical professionals. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: We're describing [[abortion]] today, and I don't agree with you about its history but there is no reason to waste time on it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

:::: Unless we want produce an accurate article. Furthermore, the fact that a person gets paid is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every job described here should include the phrase "and profits from"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversions ==

It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the [[Hippocratic Oath]] prohibits abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== We don't censor here ==

Right... --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: And what about the rest of the edit that you just wiped? Why didn't you just change "medical professionals"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: Your other edits were also biased. You omitted the period of time or statistics about other lines of work, making your (dubious) statistic utterly meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::: What statistics? 7 people have been murdered? Are you suggesting that before I can write that I have to compare it with violence against, say, plumbers? Dentists? Unicyclists?
:::: The point is that it is worthy of comment that there has been an orchestrated violent campaign by the chronically unhinged against abortionists. That is clearly a fact worthy of note in an article about abortionists. Isn't it? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Oh, and by the way, your comment about the Hippocratic oath seems a bit odd in light of the fact that the Conservapedia article on that oath states that less than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths contain a prohibition against abortion. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Compare your statistics to other professions, and put in the context of a time period (over a decade ago, and over an extended period of time). Your "7" figure is already a distortion, since most of them were not even abortionists. Your other comment proves our points: liberals are the ones who have distorted the Oath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: No worries. What professions would you like me to compare them with? You just tell me. I'll do the research.

:::::: I don't see how you can say the 7 figure was a distortion since I clearly stated that 3 of them were doctors. The period, by the way, was 1993 to 1998 inclusive. I included that figure in a later edit which you also reverted.

:::::: Frankly, I just don't follow the logic of your last comment. I merely pointed out that your criticism of abortionists as "medical professionals" based on the fact that they took a Hippocratic oath which "prohibits abortion" was wrong according to Conservapedia. How does that prove that liberals have distorted the oath? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I never said that [[abortionists]] "took a Hippocratic oath." What else have you made up? On this page, you did not clarify that most of the 7 were not even [[abortionists]].

::::::: Compare your statistic to that for psychiatrists. Or emergency room doctors. And why would you even insist upon highlighting anomalous statistics from over a decade ago in an entry today? It's misleading in suggesting that the statistics are representative of today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Here is the page content as I had it:

::::::::: An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

::::::::: Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.

::::::::: == External links ==

::::::::: *[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

::::::::: ==See Also==
::::::::: [[Abortion]]

::::::::: [[category:medicine]]

:::::::: You can see that I said "seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors". That seems pretty clear to me.

:::::::: As regards the Hippocratic oath, you said:

::::::::: "It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion".

:::::::: I took your comment to be a criticism of abortionists for having taken the Hippocratic oath and then performing abortions. Exactly what is your point? They are medical doctors. They have taken the Hippocratic oath. And, according to Conservapedia's article you were wrong about the contents of the oath. Perhaps you can explain? But I would also be interested in getting the statistics that you are relying on for your assertion that abortionists are often people who have been "kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". That's the sort of thing that probably should go in the article if it could be properly cited.

:::::::: Your suggestion that the violence against abortionists is irrelevant is very strange. The "anomalous statistics" that you talk about were people who were murdered based on the job that they were performing. The job that the article is supposed to be describing. If you are just interested in proganda then tell me. I will go and work on some other page (although I should probably steer clear of the Richard Dawkins page). But if you are genuinely interested in creating a decent article then how about including some accurate information about one of the striking aspects of this job - the fact that people have been murdered for doing it ''within'' the last ten years.

:::::::: Finally, I will see if I can find out if any psychiatrists have been killed ''for being psychiatrists'' or if many emergency room doctors have been killed ''for being emergency room doctors''. That would seem to be the proper basis for comparison. Unless you had something else in mind. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 00:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T05:29:05Z

HMayo: /* We don't censor here */

== Let's just pause for a minute ==

Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

It is inaccurate to say that an abortionist is someone who necessarily profits from abortion. It might well usually be so but it not necessarily so. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: It's factual. Abortion is a profitable business, and there are no volunteer abortionists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: I understand that. But it has not always been so. Abortion has a long history and the procedure has not always been in the hands of trained (and paid) medical professionals. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: We're describing [[abortion]] today, and I don't agree with you about its history but there is no reason to waste time on it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

:::: Unless we want produce an accurate article. Furthermore, the fact that a person gets paid is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every job described here should include the phrase "and profits from"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversions ==

It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the [[Hippocratic Oath]] prohibits abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== We don't censor here ==

Right... --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: And what about the rest of the edit that you just wiped? Why didn't you just change "medical professionals"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: Your other edits were also biased. You omitted the period of time or statistics about other lines of work, making your (dubious) statistic utterly meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::: What statistics? 7 people have been murdered? Are you suggesting that before I can write that I have to compare it with violence against, say, plumbers? Dentists? Unicyclists?
:::: The point is that it is worthy of comment that there has been an orchestrated violent campaign by the chronically unhinged against abortionists. That is clearly a fact worthy of note in an article about abortionists. Isn't it? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Oh, and by the way, your comment about the Hippocratic oath seems a bit odd in light of the fact that the Conservapedia article on that oath states that less than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths contain a prohibition against abortion. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Compare your statistics to other professions, and put in the context of a time period (over a decade ago, and over an extended period of time). Your "7" figure is already a distortion, since most of them were not even abortionists. Your other comment proves our points: liberals are the ones who have distorted the Oath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: No worries. What professions would you like me to compare them with? You just tell me. I'll do the research.

:::::: I don't see how you can say the 7 figure was a distortion since I clearly stated that 3 of them were doctors. The period, by the way, was 1993 to 1998 inclusive. I included that figure in a later edit which you also reverted.

:::::: Frankly, I just don't follow the logic of your last comment. I merely pointed out that your criticism of abortionists as "medical professionals" based on the fact that they took a Hippocratic oath which "prohibits abortion" was wrong according to Conservapedia. How does that prove that liberals have distorted the oath? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I never said that [[abortionists]] "took a Hippocratic oath." What else have you made up? On this page, you did not clarify that most of the 7 were not even [[abortionists]].

::::::: Compare your statistic to that for psychiatrists. Or emergency room doctors. And why would you even insist upon highlighting anomalous statistics from over a decade ago in an entry today? It's misleading in suggesting that the statistics are representative of today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Here is the page content as I had it:

::::::::: An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

::::::::: Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.

::::::::: == External links ==

::::::::: *[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

::::::::: ==See Also==
::::::::: [[Abortion]]

::::::::: [[category:medicine]]

:::::::: You can see that I said "seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors". That seems pretty clear to me.

:::::::: As regards the Hippocratic oath, you said:

::::::::: "It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion".

:::::::: I took your comment to be a criticism of abortionists for having taken the Hippocratic oath and then performing abortions. Exactly what is your point? They are medical doctors. They have taken the Hippocratic oath. And, according to Conservapedia's article you were wrong about the contents of the oath. Perhaps you can explain? But I would also be interested in getting the statistics that you are relying on for your assertion that abortionists are oftern people who have been "kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". That's the sort of thing that probably should go in the article if it could be properly cited.

:::::::: Your suggestion that the violence against abortionists is irrelevant is very strange. The "anomalous statistics" that you talk about were people who were murdered based on the job that they were performing. The job that the article is supposed to be describing. If you are just interested in proganda then tell me. I will go and work on some other page (although I should probably steer clear of the Richard Dawkins page). But if you are genuinely interested in creating a decent article then how about including some accurate information about one of the striking aspects of this job - the fact that people have been murdered for doing it ''within'' the last ten years.

:::::::: Finally, I will see if I can find out if any psychiatrists have been killed ''for being psychiatrists'' or if many emergency room doctors have been killed ''for being emergency room doctors''. That would seem to be the proper basis for comparison. Unless you had something else in mind. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 00:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T03:47:41Z

HMayo: /* We don't censor here */

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T03:32:54Z

HMayo: /* We don't censor here */

Abortionist

2008-02-24T03:16:20Z

HMayo:

An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

Abortionists are medical doctors who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] between 1993 and 1998 seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors. This represents a far lower professional death rate than that which exists, for example, amongst lion tamers but is higher than that for ichthyologists.

== External links ==

*[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

==See Also==
[[Abortion]]

[[category:medicine]]

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T03:00:44Z

HMayo: /* We don't censor here */

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T02:51:23Z

HMayo: /* We don't censor here */

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T02:20:01Z

HMayo: /* We don't censor here */

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T02:19:40Z

HMayo: /* We don't censor here */

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T02:17:54Z

HMayo: We don't censor here

Abortionist

2008-02-24T02:04:44Z

HMayo:

An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.

== External links ==

*[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

==See Also==
[[Abortion]]

[[category:medicine]]

Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:59:42Z

HMayo:

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:36:39Z

HMayo: /* Let's just pause for a minute */

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:32:20Z

HMayo:

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:28:22Z

HMayo: /* Let's just pause for a minute */

Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:20:31Z

HMayo: See talk page

An '''abortionist''' is one who performs [[abortion|abortions]].

[[category:medicine]]

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:18:10Z

HMayo:

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:14:22Z

HMayo: New page: == Let's just pause for a minute == Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --~~~~

== Let's just pause for a minute ==

Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:06:28Z

HMayo:

An '''abortionist''' is one who performs [[abortion|abortions]].

Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:05:33Z

HMayo: No need to profit to fit the definition

An '''abortionist''' is one who performs [[abortion]].

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-14T00:47:37Z

HMayo: /* Abortions and breast cancer */

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I know this seems a silly, liberal question to ask...but where is all the reference material for these points? I thought this was an informative encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The truth shall set you free, after all.[[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 07:56 13 February 2008 (CST)

:Yes, the second Conservapedia commandment says "Always cite and give credit to your sources" - yet in this article there is hardly any source given for any of the asssertions. I find the examples in the article very informative, but I'd sure like to see some sources. I'd be very interested, for example, to see evidence of a liberal denial of the foundation of democracy in Protestant Christianity. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, this entry really gets under the skin of [[liberal]]s, doesn't it? Citations are easy to find for each point and will be filled in. Instead of complaining with talk, talk, talk, how about filling in some citations yourself?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:05, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::OK - sorry - good point - will do! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Folks, go somewhere else to engage in [[liberal denial]]s. Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::"Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." --Aschlafly Andy, that's like saying that eating too much sodium is bad for you (Something no honest person disagrees with), so therefore, eating absolutely no sodium is good for you(Something which would prove fatal). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 21:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: You statement has no logic. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with quantity or frequency, and your analogy has no basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::My statement has as much logic as your's. This is good, therefore, this is bad (Or vice-versa). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Your analogy is nonsensical, and I'm not going to allow [[last wordism]] for such nonsense. No one sincerely and knowingly denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and of course the inverse is also true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::You refuse to allow last wordism? Doesn't that mean that you're demanding the last word? And isn't that a trait of liberals, according to you? Doesn't that make you a closet liberal, Andy? Don't you see how the accusation of last wordism is in and of itself last wordism? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of [[breast cancer]], than conversely [[abstinence]] increases the risk of breast cancer. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)

: Curses! That's exactly what I was going to say. Aschlafly's argument is utterly misguided. The woman concerned has the same cancer risk as if she was never pregnant. Is that an increased risk??? Do we now go and edit the [[abstinence]] page to say that abstinence increases the risk of cancer? [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 17:20, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:: Nice try folks, but you just continue to prove the point about [[liberal denial]]. Abortion does plainly increase the risk of breast cancer. The more abortions now, the more cases of breast cancer in the future. Continue to deny it and thereby continue to demonstrate liberal denial. As to abstinence, for the unmarried it is the best way to avoid cervical and breast cancer and far better than cancer-causing birth control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:::I'm sorry Andy. That was rude of me, and I apologize. But I am genuinely confused at this point. How is abstinence the "best way to avoid cervival and breast cancer"??? With respect to [[breast cancer]] risk, what is the difference between [[abortion|aborting]] several babies or simply remaining [[abstinence|abstinent]] throughout the same time period? Actually I do think that there is a reason here and I've missed it, at least it certainly seems like that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:25, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Feebasfactor, thanks for your apology. The decision that a pregnant mother faces is whether to allow childbirth or have an abortion. Abstinence is irrelevant to that decision. Having the abortion increases her risk of breast cancer. There's no denying it, much as [[liberal]]s try. Study our [[abortion]] entry if you really want further explanation. There's no need for me to repeat that entry here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I have been watching this discussion with increasing dismay. Perhaps it would be easier, Andy, if I put it in story form for you.

::::: Let’s contemplate a story of two young women. We shall call one Mary and the other Jezebel. Now Mary has evil atheist parents and has been brought up in the absence of the Ten Commandments and without clear moral guidelines. Jezebel, on the other hand, is the daughter of committed Christians and knows right from wrong. In particular she practices abstinence and, accordingly is saving herself for her future husband. Mary, however, is wanton and, with no moral guidance, becomes pregnant to her slacker boyfriend Cory. Upon learning the news Cory immediately decamps for Canada. Due to her total lack of knowledge of God’s wishes, Mary has an abortion.

::::: Which of the two young women has a greater risk of getting breast cancer?

::::: P.S. Could you please unlock the Conservative Denial page. I’ve just had an idea about what to put in it. .--[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Not able to respond? Doesn't surprise me. The answer is neither.

:::::: Which leads me to an observation. See in the article how you accuse liberals of concealing, denying or censoring the way in which their ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters?

:::::: In light of this discussion I guess that's what you might call ironic, isn't it? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 00:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Your hypothetical has no bearing with respect to a woman choosing between having an abortion or carrying the pregnancy to birth. Factually, by the way, the woman who has the abortion has greater risk of breast cancer. As to "conservative denial," just suggest it here. No need for a special page for just one not-yet-made suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: On the contrary, my hypothetical was exactly on point. All you have been saying is, in effect, that child birth protects you against breast cancer. It was pointed out to you that the logical result of that was that abstinence causes breast cancer in the same way that abortion causes breast cancer (i.e. both prevent one from having a child). You seem determined to just ignore the logic. Fine. No doubt those reading this page will have no difficulty seeing that for what it is.

:::::::: You now appear to be making a new claim to the effect that the woman having the abortion has a higher risk than the abstinent woman.

:::::::: Do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for that claim? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Caroline, the woman who chooses abortion over childbirth thereby increases her risk of breast cancer. She should be told that before taking that risk. Yes, our entry on [[abortion]] has many citations for this. It is not even seriously disputed, except to advance the pro-abortion agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: OK then. Let's recap.

:::::::::: 1. You agree (although you seem utterly incapable of actually typing it) that in my example both Mary and Jezebel have the same breast cancer risk at the conclusion of the story.

:::::::::: 2. Any increased risk that you are claiming is related to whether or not a woman has a child rather than whether or not a woman has an abortion. A woman could, for example, have an abortion at the age of 20 and a child at the age of 21 and enjoy the very same risk level that she would have had if she had never had the abortion.

:::::::::: 3. Presumably you are of the view that any woman who is contemplating a life of abstinence should be warned of the breast cancer risk associated with that lifestyle.

:::::::::: I'm glad we seem to have sorted all of that out. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 20:29, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: The only thing you've "sorted" out is your clinging to [[liberal denial]]. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer for more than one reason, and abstinence is irrelevant to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:03, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: This is the second time recently that you have resorted to an ad hominem attack. I usually take it as a sign that my interlocutor has a weak argument. That certainly appears to be the case here.

:::::::::::: You have stated that, in your view, "abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ''for more than one reason''". Our discussion to date was largely premised on your somewhat bizzare interpretation of a connection between childbirth and breast cancer. You now seem to be changing that by referring to "more than one reason". What does that mean? Could you please identify those reasons. And, I ask again, do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for your claims. I posted the URL of the National Cancer Institute on the subject. That page states, in part:

::::::::::::: ''"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer".''

:::::::::::: Do you have some higher or better authority? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 17:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Wow, 100 [[liberals]] denied how abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Yes, there is better authority, like the vast majority of scientific studies on the topic. Read [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: I'm sure Caroline thanks you for that detailed response. Unfortunately she has been blocked for 5 years as a troll.

:::::::::::::: I must say, however, I am curious to know how you determined that "...over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk" actually meant "100 liberals".

:::::::::::::: Is that what they call ex post facto reasoning? Or do you know the politics of each individual involved? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 19:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: Read [[abortion]] and its explanation of the breast cancer link. If you still deny the link, then take your denials elsewhere. We recognize that you have free will and that liberals will deny certain truths regardless of the evidence. We're not going to allow [[last wordism]] for chanting a [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Thanks, that's what I thought. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 19:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)

==Suggestion for Item 11==
That denying any above is intrinsic proof of this list's accuracy, unquestionability, and the need not to offer proof for anything. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==#9 Reversion?==
So, I'm wondering why my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_denial&diff=385690&oldid=385544 change] to #9 was reverted. Seems to me that liberals don't deny that the media is biased, they just deny that it is biased in ''their'' favor. I don't have a huge problem with the difference, I'm just wondering as to the rationale.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)

: It's a close call, but I agree with the reversion though I didn't do it. Liberals generally do deny media bias, period. They only make arguments of conservative bias in response to observations of liberal bias.

: Moreover, "liberal media bias" is a bit redundant, as virtually all of the media has a liberal bias, It's intrinsic to that profession, with the media's reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news), constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life), dependence on obscenity and allusions to obscenity, its political correctness, and its obsession with racial imagery.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)
::Fair enough...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:27, 10 February 2008 (EST)

== 'Hollywood Values' ==

The part about Wikipedia 'not having an entry on Hollywood Values', should really be removed, for the very simple reason that this phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. As such, I would not be too surprised if the reason Wikipedia doesn't have an entry is simply because it is far too difficult to accurately define.
Oh, and, yes, I will also make this point on the talk page of the 'Hollywood Values' article. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:44, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Wikipedia has entries about terms have more than one meaning all the time. In fact, that simply argues ''in favor of'' having an entry. But put up an entry on "Hollywood Values" on Wikipedia and watch how quickly a liberal insists that it be deleted (censored).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::That is true, WP wouldn't have a page called '''Hollywood Values''' because in posting one it would be (quickly) recognized as "original research", something the WP guidelines consider ''verbotten.'' [[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 16:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:: Wikipedia has terms with more than one meaning, yes, but those have a relatively small number of known meanings. 'Hollywood Values', conversely, has been used to mean a very large number of things already, and seems to be changed to mean just about anything depending on who uses it and in what context. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

On a related note - should this article perhaps contain a section on the [[Hollywood Blacklist]]? Or can that not really be considered a part of Hollywood Values...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Liberals denying there were communists in high-level government positions? Yes, that is old news but perhaps worth adding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-14T00:02:49Z

HMayo: /* Abortions and breast cancer */

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I know this seems a silly, liberal question to ask...but where is all the reference material for these points? I thought this was an informative encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The truth shall set you free, after all.[[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 07:56 13 February 2008 (CST)

:Yes, the second Conservapedia commandment says "Always cite and give credit to your sources" - yet in this article there is hardly any source given for any of the asssertions. I find the examples in the article very informative, but I'd sure like to see some sources. I'd be very interested, for example, to see evidence of a liberal denial of the foundation of democracy in Protestant Christianity. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, this entry really gets under the skin of [[liberal]]s, doesn't it? Citations are easy to find for each point and will be filled in. Instead of complaining with talk, talk, talk, how about filling in some citations yourself?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:05, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::OK - sorry - good point - will do! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Folks, go somewhere else to engage in [[liberal denial]]s. Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::"Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." --Aschlafly Andy, that's like saying that eating too much sodium is bad for you (Something no honest person disagrees with), so therefore, eating absolutely no sodium is good for you(Something which would prove fatal). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 21:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: You statement has no logic. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with quantity or frequency, and your analogy has no basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::My statement has as much logic as your's. This is good, therefore, this is bad (Or vice-versa). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Your analogy is nonsensical, and I'm not going to allow [[last wordism]] for such nonsense. No one sincerely and knowingly denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and of course the inverse is also true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::You refuse to allow last wordism? Doesn't that mean that you're demanding the last word? And isn't that a trait of liberals, according to you? Doesn't that make you a closet liberal, Andy? Don't you see how the accusation of last wordism is in and of itself last wordism? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of [[breast cancer]], than conversely [[abstinence]] increases the risk of breast cancer. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)

: Curses! That's exactly what I was going to say. Aschlafly's argument is utterly misguided. The woman concerned has the same cancer risk as if she was never pregnant. Is that an increased risk??? Do we now go and edit the [[abstinence]] page to say that abstinence increases the risk of cancer? [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 17:20, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:: Nice try folks, but you just continue to prove the point about [[liberal denial]]. Abortion does plainly increase the risk of breast cancer. The more abortions now, the more cases of breast cancer in the future. Continue to deny it and thereby continue to demonstrate liberal denial. As to abstinence, for the unmarried it is the best way to avoid cervical and breast cancer and far better than cancer-causing birth control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:::I'm sorry Andy. That was rude of me, and I apologize. But I am genuinely confused at this point. How is abstinence the "best way to avoid cervival and breast cancer"??? With respect to [[breast cancer]] risk, what is the difference between [[abortion|aborting]] several babies or simply remaining [[abstinence|abstinent]] throughout the same time period? Actually I do think that there is a reason here and I've missed it, at least it certainly seems like that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:25, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Feebasfactor, thanks for your apology. The decision that a pregnant mother faces is whether to allow childbirth or have an abortion. Abstinence is irrelevant to that decision. Having the abortion increases her risk of breast cancer. There's no denying it, much as [[liberal]]s try. Study our [[abortion]] entry if you really want further explanation. There's no need for me to repeat that entry here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I have been watching this discussion with increasing dismay. Perhaps it would be easier, Andy, if I put it in story form for you.

::::: Let’s contemplate a story of two young women. We shall call one Mary and the other Jezebel. Now Mary has evil atheist parents and has been brought up in the absence of the Ten Commandments and without clear moral guidelines. Jezebel, on the other hand, is the daughter of committed Christians and knows right from wrong. In particular she practices abstinence and, accordingly is saving herself for her future husband. Mary, however, is wanton and, with no moral guidance, becomes pregnant to her slacker boyfriend Cory. Upon learning the news Cory immediately decamps for Canada. Due to her total lack of knowledge of God’s wishes, Mary has an abortion.

::::: Which of the two young women has a greater risk of getting breast cancer?

::::: P.S. Could you please unlock the Conservative Denial page. I’ve just had an idea about what to put in it. .--[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Not able to respond? Doesn't surprise me. The answer is neither.

:::::: Which leads me to an observation. See in the article how you accuse liberals of concealing, denying or censoring the way in which their ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters?

:::::: In light of this discussion I guess that's what you might call ironic, isn't it? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 00:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Your hypothetical has no bearing with respect to a woman choosing between having an abortion or carrying the pregnancy to birth. Factually, by the way, the woman who has the abortion has greater risk of breast cancer. As to "conservative denial," just suggest it here. No need for a special page for just one not-yet-made suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: On the contrary, my hypothetical was exactly on point. All you have been saying is, in effect, that child birth protects you against breast cancer. It was pointed out to you that the logical result of that was that abstinence causes breast cancer in the same way that abortion causes breast cancer (i.e. both prevent one from having a child). You seem determined to just ignore the logic. Fine. No doubt those reading this page will have no difficulty seeing that for what it is.

:::::::: You now appear to be making a new claim to the effect that the woman having the abortion has a higher risk than the abstinent woman.

:::::::: Do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for that claim? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Caroline, the woman who chooses abortion over childbirth thereby increases her risk of breast cancer. She should be told that before taking that risk. Yes, our entry on [[abortion]] has many citations for this. It is not even seriously disputed, except to advance the pro-abortion agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: OK then. Let's recap.

:::::::::: 1. You agree (although you seem utterly incapable of actually typing it) that in my example both Mary and Jezebel have the same breast cancer risk at the conclusion of the story.

:::::::::: 2. Any increased risk that you are claiming is related to whether or not a woman has a child rather than whether or not a woman has an abortion. A woman could, for example, have an abortion at the age of 20 and a child at the age of 21 and enjoy the very same risk level that she would have had if she had never had the abortion.

:::::::::: 3. Presumably you are of the view that any woman who is contemplating a life of abstinence should be warned of the breast cancer risk associated with that lifestyle.

:::::::::: I'm glad we seem to have sorted all of that out. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 20:29, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: The only thing you've "sorted" out is your clinging to [[liberal denial]]. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer for more than one reason, and abstinence is irrelevant to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:03, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: This is the second time recently that you have resorted to an ad hominem attack. I usually take it as a sign that my interlocutor has a weak argument. That certainly appears to be the case here.

:::::::::::: You have stated that, in your view, "abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ''for more than one reason''". Our discussion to date was largely premised on your somewhat bizzare interpretation of a connection between childbirth and breast cancer. You now seem to be changing that by referring to "more than one reason". What does that mean? Could you please identify those reasons. And, I ask again, do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for your claims. I posted the URL of the National Cancer Institute on the subject. That page states, in part:

::::::::::::: ''"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer".''

:::::::::::: Do you have some higher or better authority? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 17:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Wow, 100 [[liberals]] denied how abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Yes, there is better authority, like the vast majority of scientific studies on the topic. Read [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: I'm sure Caroline thanks you for that detailed response. Unfortunately she has been blocked for 5 years as a troll.

:::::::::::::: I must say, however, I am curious to know how you determined that "...over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk" actually meant "100 liberals".

:::::::::::::: Is that what they call ex post facto reasoning? Or do you know the politics of each individual involved? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 19:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)

==Suggestion for Item 11==
That denying any above is intrinsic proof of this list's accuracy, unquestionability, and the need not to offer proof for anything. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==#9 Reversion?==
So, I'm wondering why my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_denial&diff=385690&oldid=385544 change] to #9 was reverted. Seems to me that liberals don't deny that the media is biased, they just deny that it is biased in ''their'' favor. I don't have a huge problem with the difference, I'm just wondering as to the rationale.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)

: It's a close call, but I agree with the reversion though I didn't do it. Liberals generally do deny media bias, period. They only make arguments of conservative bias in response to observations of liberal bias.

: Moreover, "liberal media bias" is a bit redundant, as virtually all of the media has a liberal bias, It's intrinsic to that profession, with the media's reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news), constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life), dependence on obscenity and allusions to obscenity, its political correctness, and its obsession with racial imagery.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)
::Fair enough...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:27, 10 February 2008 (EST)

== 'Hollywood Values' ==

The part about Wikipedia 'not having an entry on Hollywood Values', should really be removed, for the very simple reason that this phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. As such, I would not be too surprised if the reason Wikipedia doesn't have an entry is simply because it is far too difficult to accurately define.
Oh, and, yes, I will also make this point on the talk page of the 'Hollywood Values' article. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:44, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Wikipedia has entries about terms have more than one meaning all the time. In fact, that simply argues ''in favor of'' having an entry. But put up an entry on "Hollywood Values" on Wikipedia and watch how quickly a liberal insists that it be deleted (censored).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::That is true, WP wouldn't have a page called '''Hollywood Values''' because in posting one it would be (quickly) recognized as "original research", something the WP guidelines consider ''verbotten.'' [[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 16:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

On a related note - should this article perhaps contain a section on the [[Hollywood Blacklist]]? Or can that not really be considered a part of Hollywood Values...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Liberals denying there were communists in high-level government positions? Yes, that is old news but perhaps worth adding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Abstinence

2008-02-02T22:27:19Z

HMayo: Edit in accordance with Aschlafly theory

[[Image:Beads MFA Boston.jpg|right|thumb|128px|Abstinence beads.]]
The word '''abstinence''' means refraining from indulging in an appetite.

In the 1800s and 1900s, the word "abstinence," used without other explanation, almost always meant abstinence from [[drinking|alcohol]]. The "abstinence movement," for example, led to the establishment of [[prohibition]]. ''[[Teetotaler]]'' meant someone who advocated "total abstinence," rather than just moderation.

Starting in about the 1990s, "abstinence" has been more commonly used in the context of abstinence from sexual intercourse, particularly in the United States in the context of [[sex education]] for adolescents. Thus, for example, we read in a 2002 [[White House]] policy statement:
:..."the goal of Federal policy should be to emphasize abstinence as the only certain way to avoid both unintended pregnancies and STDs."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/welfare-book-06.html WORKING TOWARD INDEPENDENCE] Encourage Abstinence and Prevent Teen Pregnancy, White House News and Policies, February 2002</ref>

Studies of the effectiveness of [[abstinence education]] programs have yielded differing conclusions. A 2004 study by the [[Heritage Foundation]] found that [[virginity pledge]]s significantly reduce premarital sex without putting backsliders at risk.<ref> Teens Who Make Virginity Pledges Have Substantially Improved Life Outcomes
by Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Jennifer A. Marshall
Center for Data Analysis Report #04-07 [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda04-07.cfm] </ref> A study funded by the Administration of [[liberal]] President [[Bill Clinton]] through Mathematica Policy Research found that "the programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth."<ref>[http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp Impacts of Four Abstinence Education Programs]</ref> But this study reached this [[liberal]] conclusion by omitting abstinence education during the pivotal high school years and by only following 4 elementary and middle school programs out of 700 total schools that had received funding.<ref>http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU07D09</ref>

[[Liberals]] oppose abstinence policies and [[Planned Parenthood]], a powerful liberal organization, profits from teenage sexual activity. Yet the facts are undisputed: abstinent teens do not get infected with STDs or become pregnant from having sex.

'''Benefits of Abstinence'''

Clear conscience with [[God]].

Peace of mind in your life and future relationships, and marriage.

More self-respect and more respect for each others and respected by other people.

Always remember, in a healthy relationship, respect precedes love. and premarital sex only throws away your self respect and your partner's.

You enter marriage with a more positive outlook and without carrying emotional baggage.

Personal freedom for both of you and your (future) marriage partner.

Significantly better chance in having more satisfying and more stable marriage.

Longer lasting relationship. Premarital sex surprisingly breaks up more dating couples than any other factor.

No comparing or being compared sexually in marriage. It also means "being free to enjoy maximum sex, maximum leisure, maximum satisfaction, and maximum liberty, in the way God intended" that is in the covenant of marriage.

No worries about pregnancy and STDs.

Less worries about bad reputation.

It's a fact that persons and couples who have premarital sex are more likely to have extramarital affairs as well.

Premarital sex often fools a person into marrying someone who really isn't right for them.

You don't have to put yourself under someone else's mercy not to reject you. It's still a fact, that the more "experienced" guys and girls are generally less desirable and less respected as dating or marriage partners.

Realize there is a 98 percent chance you will never marry the person you date in high school, so it is always better to keep yourself pure for the right person, that is your future wife or husband. <ref>[http://www.premaritalsex.info/ Sexual Purity]</ref>

'''Problems with abstinence'''

An increased risk of breast cancer for women<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_denial&diff=prev&oldid=383596]</ref>.

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Abstinence|Articles about '''Abstinence''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Sexual purity]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.teen-aid.org/ Abstinence is saying yes to the rest of your life]
*[http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=25922 HHS study reveals flaws in sex education]

==Notes and references==
<small><references/></small>
[[category:education]]
[[Category:Contraception]]

Talk:Liberal denial

2008-02-02T22:21:22Z

HMayo: /* Abortions and breast cancer */

Breatharianism

2008-01-31T00:19:59Z

HMayo: Better fit?

Breatharianism, also known as inedia, is the mistaken belief that a person can live without eating or drinking. Its most prominent proponent is a notorious charlatan named Jasmuheen, an [[Australian]]. Jasmuheen said that she was told by [[St. Germaine]] to practice breatharianism and preach it to the world, she claims that she talks to his ghost frequently, usually on the telephone line, she also claims to know the ghost of the ancient Greek mathematician, philosopher, and occultist [[Pythagoras]]. ''60 Minutes'' has disproven her claim that she can do this. Most people would not bother with nonsense like this but ''60 Minutes'' did because her teachings have been linked to the deaths of some of her followers. One follower who died following the breatharian "diet" was Verity Lynn, who went into a mountainous area of Scotland and died with Jasmuheen's book ''Living on Light'' next to her and a diary noting that she was in the seventh day of her fast. One person who ''60 Minutes'' interviewed about Jasmuheen, Dr. David Millikin, said "What she is teaching is a lie because if she is saying that you can live in this world without eating and drinking then that is a lie and if people believe that then they're going to die." He said about Jasmuheen "I guess it's tempting to say that she's mad, but I shy away from that, because my experience in working with many cult leaders leads me to believe that they actually believe intensely in what their doing, but I guess when she gets hungry, and eats a piece of Kentucky Fried Chicken, I would ask her then, does she believe, because of course she eats". The program's host Richard Carleton challenged Jasmuheen to prove that she could live without eating or drinking for one week. She agreed and was taken to a hotel where was videotaped and monitored by female security to ensure she did not eat or drink at all. Beres Wink, the president of the Queensland branch of the Australian Medical Association, monitored her progress. By day two there were already problems. Dr. Wink informed Jasmuheen that she was over 5% dehydrated. Wink said "If we let this go on much longer, that's going to, going to damage your kidney." On the third day Jasmuheen complained that city pollution was making it impossible for her to get the nutrients she got by breathing fresh air. So ''60 Minutes'' took her to a place where she would have all the fresh air she wanted. She claimed she was feeling better. But still by day five she was very pale, gaunt, and sickly. Dr. Wink stated that she was over 10% dehydrated going up to 11%. She urged ''60 Minutes'' to stop the experiment, saying they would culpable if they allowed Jasmuheen to continue. She said the risks were kidney failure and that Jasmuheen was burning up her fat and her muscles and was entering a very dangerous stage. (link to ''60 Minutes'' episode about Jasmuheen http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8060648983626971848&q=breatharianism&hl=en)
[[category:Cults]]