Talk:Breast Exam

2007-07-17T02:57:18Z

Hawks: Pantywaists

== Cancer?!?!? ==

What about the proven links between breast cancer and abortions? Surely that shouple be at least mentioned in this article? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 21:26, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely PF. Fox not only reverted my additions - which were referenced fully on the [[Abortion]] article, but has locked the page! Information that's already on CP is missing here! [[User:DoggerelBank|DoggerelBank]] 21:29, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
::Why does it belong in this article? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:29, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

This is not an article about gynaecology or oncology. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:31, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Fox, why do you keep undoing my additions [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Breast_Exam&curid=10005&diff=236826&oldid=236814] to this article. Alll the facts are well-known and fully authenticated over in the [[Abortion]] article? I think it's important that women know not only what a breast exam is, but why they should go for one - and what makes them more susceptible to a [[cancer]]. Maybe you'd like to explain your undoing, and now blocking of this article? [[User:DoggerelBank|DoggerelBank]] 21:24, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:The article is about breast examination; it is not specifically about Gynecology or Oncology. The article as last edited by Aschlafly seems more than adequate. I blocked it to prevent your reversion of my edits. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:29, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, what on earth are they examining FOR? The article makes absolutely no reference to cancer, but merely mentions 'abnormalities' and 'early detection'. Detection of what?!!! What is the PURPOSE of this procedure, but to identify possible cancers? And meanwhile, the [[Abortion]] article establishes that it causes breast cancers, but doesn't link to this article, i.e. tell a woman what to do about it? [[User:DoggerelBank|DoggerelBank]] 21:32, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem so keen to add:

*Heredity
*Diet
*Alcohol
*Obesity
*Hormones
*Tobacco
*Radiation exposure
*Environmental estrogenic mimics
*Dioxins
*Deodorants
*Fertility treatments
*Phytoestrogens

I take it that you have an agenda all of your own, in that case. And its not necessarily a good one [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:36, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:You seem to completely miss my point - I would be all for adding the links there too. I'm simply saying that:

::1) The article fails to explain the PURPOSE of a Breast Exam - which, let's be clear, is to detect cancer.
::2) Another CP article clearly establishes that breast cancer is known to be caused by [[Abortion]]s.
::3) The suppresion of this linkage is traditional [[liberal]] [[deceit]].

:Are you a [[liberal]], Fox? And if not, why won't you allow this information to be linked? [[User:DoggerelBank|DoggerelBank]] 21:42, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

It's not an article ABOUT oncology, but oncology - and the desire to avoid dealing with it - is the raison d'etre for the breast exam, and since this article deals with risk factors, what's the harm of a sentence on an important aspect? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 21:33, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

This article fails to inform the reader of the purpose of the examination. [[User:Hawkeye|Hawkeye]] 22:03, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it's funny, you banned me, but I'm actually a Republican, and it would appear I'm somewhat to the right of you here, which is amusing to me. You pantywaists don't seem to want to bring the [[Abortion]] fight to the forefront of the site, whereas I do, that's all. Seems to me this is just a lot of hot air and a talking shop, that's all. [[User:Hawks|Hawks]] 22:57, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Breast Exam