Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Google

2012-09-18T01:58:38Z

Revmarkison:

[[File:Google.png|right|250px]]
'''Google''' is a company whose primary business is [[Internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]]. Google is associated with [[liberal]] causes and has been criticized for catering to communist [[China]] in censoring information from the people as requested by dictators:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm</ref>

: Reporters Without Borders joined others in asking how Google could stand up for US users' freedoms while controlling what Chinese users can search for. Its previous search engine for China's fast-growing market was subject to government blocks. The new site - Google.cn - censors itself to satisfy Beijing. While cooperating with China's government, Google refuses to fulfill requests by the U.S. Department of Justice. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4630694.stm , BBC Google defies US over search data, January 20, 2006</ref> Google counsel Nicole Wong said "..we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

Google has also been accused of delisting [[conservative]] news sites from its search engine. As one of many examples, "In February 2005, [[Michelle Malkin]] wrote of the difficulties she was having becoming part of Google News."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/5477</ref>

Much of Google's business depends on pornography. For example, 25% of search engine requests are for pornography.<ref>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html</ref>

In addition, although claiming to generally avoid getting involved in matters outside their field, Google officially supports the [[liberal]] and social [[libertarian]] cause of so-called "[[same sex marriage]]."<ref>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html , Our position on California's No on 8 campaign</ref> On June 21, 2009, Google displayed a special multicolored line for searches on the word "gay". More troubling, Google recently announced plans to compensate employees to cover taxes paid on their domestic partner's health benefits, but only offers its 'generosity' to gay couples. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/01/google-raises-eyebrows-new-gay-employee-benefit/</ref>. Google is also big promoter of [[Charles Darwin]] and atheistic science, even to the point of giving special recognition to the anniversary of Darwin's birthday ("Darwin Day").

Major competitors of Google include [[Yahoo!]] and Microsoft's [[Bing]].

== Corporate Information ==

The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. He has announced that he is stepping down as CEO in 2011. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref>

Google also owns [[YouTube]], the homemade [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] is suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

After much debate about their corporate Code of Conduct, Google's founders settled on the all-encompassing "Don't be evil", saying,"It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards". <ref>[http://investor.google.com/conduct.html Google Code of Conduct]</ref> This Code of Conduct has generated much criticism, saying they have missed that mark badly.

==History==
[[Image:Google2.gif|thumb|right|300px| Google's logo on [[Earth Day]], April 22, 2007.]]

===Founding===

Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Growth===

The year Google was created 1998, it had amassed 26 million unique URLs in their database. By 2000, Google had indexed more than 1 billion pages. As of July 2008, Google has indexed over 1 [[trillion]] pages. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9999814-93.html Google reveals scope of Web-crawling task] CNET News, July 25, 2008</ref>

===Competition===
[[Microsoft]] has been aggressively competing with Google for a larger share of the search market. Their latest effort, [[Bing]].com, is a "next generation" search service which has generated praise for its user interface and criticism for its speed and performance in comparison to Google and Yahoo.

==Secular Progressive Culture==

Google's West Coast headquarters hires a majority of left-leaning personalities, explicitly in executive decision-making.<ref>See [http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html] for a list of board members and senior staff.</ref> Google supports causes that are a radical departure from traditional American views, such as their public support of a 'no' vote for [[California]]'s [[Proposition 8]], which defined marriage as being between a husband and wife. Also in a subtle way, they favor politically-correct global liberalism, championed by secular progressives. They select certain ''days of importance'' for tribute, some of which are controversial. As such, ''Merry Christmas'' is replaced by ''Happy Holidays''. Even though, poll <ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/11/prweb1670824.htm Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign Crusades to Change Retail Culture] PRWeb, November 26, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/68_prefer_merry_christmas_to_happy_holidays 68% Prefer “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays”] Rasmussen, November 27, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/20/poll.season/ Poll: More Americans prefer 'Merry Christmas' greeting] CNN, December 20, 2005</ref> shows the public prefers 'Merry Christmas'. The problem may be that Google doesn't respect traditional [[Christian]] holidays, in favor of a 'culturally-correct' approach. In addition, Google accepts the [[Theory of Evolution]] by [[Charles Darwin]] as fact, promotes Darwin on their homepage with a Google Doodle logo. <ref>[Scientists unveil fossil of Darwinius masillae]</ref>

Google often honors Russia with their logo of Sputnik and for composer Igor Stravinsky. Google based their [[Independence Day]] logo on ‘This Land Is Your Land’ as an ode to leftism. Woody Guthrie wrote the lyrics and also wrote for ''[[The Daily Worker]],'' a [[Marxist]] newspaper. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/04/Google-chooses-this-land-is-your-land Google Chooses Communist-Oriented ‘This Land Is Your Land’ July 4th Theme, Breitbart.com, July 4, 2012]</ref>

=== Google versus Conservatives ===

* Many instances whereby [[information]] is comprised ideologically and displayed for the masses. Watchdog website NewsBusters.org published that Google had in fact labeled [[conservative]] [[American Spectator]] as "This site may harm your computer." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/28/google-claims-american-spectator-site-may-harm-your-computer Google Claims Conservative Website ‘May Harm Your Computer’] December 28,2007</ref>

* Google continues to block pro-family website [http://www.massresistance.org/ MassResistance]. Some people complain his organization promotes hatred towards homosexuals. Google gives the standard legal trash as an excuse "'Users may not publish material that promotes hate towards groups based on race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.'" MassResistance replies "Of course we are not promoting hate against anybody." <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=603372 Accusation: Google targets, blocks pro-family website again OneNewsNow.com, July 15,2009]</ref>

* [[YouTube]] owner, Google continues to protect [[Planned Parenthood]] by removing undercover videos exposing abortion clinic law-breaking. <ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7416111014.html YouTube Bans Student Group's Video Showing Abuse at Planned Parenthood Christian News Wire, July 21, 2009]</ref>

* Without any prior explanation or notice, Google had been terminating its News relationships with conservative e-zines and web journals. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/5477 Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites? NewsBusters, May 22, 2006]</ref>

* Google attempted to minimize global awareness of the [[ClimateGate]] emails and the truth about the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]], whence the term "[[Climategate#Googlegate|Googlegate]]" gained recognition across the [[Web]]. Non-coincidentally, [[Al Gore]] is on the Google advisory board.

* Curiously, leading up to [[Restoring Honor 8-28|Restoring Honor 8-28-10]] -- on Google Maps -- the [[Lincoln Memorial]] was being misplaced in favor of the [http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=204373&page=1&zoomIdx=1 Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial], which is a good half a mile south of the more famous memorial.<ref>Sarah Jacobsson Purewal. [http://www.pcworld.com/article/204373/google_maps_misplaces_lincoln_memorial.html Google Maps Misplaces Lincoln Memorial], ''PC World'', Aug 28, 2010.</ref> This may have been an ongoing, known problem or bug in Google Maps that hadn't been fixed yet; or, Google is censoring search results; or, Google is playing with searches for political power and gain.

=== Google versus Anti- Obama Blogs ===

The question immediately raised, "Did Google Silence [[Barack Obama]] critics?" It turns out, no they did not. A group of separate blogs were targeted by their spam filter as a result of manipulating the 'flag' feature. This caused a temporary blockage for five days. Sites affected were Hillary supporters and all anti-Obama. They include http://bluelyon.blogspot.com, http://comealongway.blogspot.com, http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com and http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com and their main associate JustSayNoDeal.com <ref>[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/google-and-the-anti-obama-bloggers/ Google and the Anti-Obama Bloggers] NYTimes June 30, 2008</ref>

=== Google sensitive to Islam ===

In 2010, it was noted that Google's suggestive searches for the world's various religions would bring up many negative results for [[Christianity]], Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. Typing a search for "Christianity is..." the results would be "Christianity is a lie," or "Judaism is..." would be "Judaism is a cult." Google removed negative search suggestions when typing "Islam is..." <ref>[http://thenextweb.com/2010/01/05/google-blocking-negative-search-recommendations-islam/ Google Blocking Negative Search Recommendations On Islam – Why?, The Next Web, May 1, 2010]</ref>, however it seems that Google has reverted this, as the current first suggestion when typing "islam is..." is "Islam is evil".

== Google bombing ==

Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is its '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to its constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page to form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, typing "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") and then clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democratic]] Party supporters in late 2003,<ref>[http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/26/BUG3M4GVDS1.DTL In October, Johnson, a Democrat, added the phrase "miserable failure" to his Web site, Old Fashioned Patriot. He then linked the site to the online White House biography of President Bush and asked others to follow his lead]</ref> as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*''''"Great President"''': returns the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidential election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Hitting "I'm Feeling Lucky" for this term directs you to a fake Google page (in reality, it is an AlbinoBlackSheep.com page, styled to look exactly like a Google page, [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html here]) giving no matches, and asking if you meant "French military defeats?".
*'''"Weapons of Mass Destruction"''' would bring up a similar page with the error message 'not found.'

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== Controversy ==

=== Tax Dodging ===

A report by Bloomberg News has Google setting up offshore banks accounts to avoid paying taxes on foreign profits. More than $3.9 billion dollars have made it to [[Bermuda]] bank accounts over the last several years. Google has cut its effective tax rate abroad to just 2.4%. The practice is common and [[George Soros]] has been known to place his billions of dollars in Cayman Island banks. This costs the U.S. government more than $60 billion dollars in revenue. <ref>[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/After-news-of-Google-tax-dodges-Obama-raises-money-with-Google-execs-105513473.html#ixzz13LE2lg1F After news of Google tax dodges, Obama raises money with Google execs, Washington Examiner, October 22, 2010]</ref>

=== Privacy Concerns===

Google has been criticized by privacy activists and others. Recently, Google chief executive Eric Schmidt said, "We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don’t know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google’s expansion." <ref>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html</ref> Google has attempted to "remedy" this situation by storing search information, in effect, keeping tabs on people for two years after they search. This has led Google critic [[Daniel Brandt]] to create "Scroogle.org", which runs Google searches that users conduct through his organization's personal servers to prevent Google from being able to connect any personal information to the searchers. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55935</ref>

=== Hypocrisy on Net neutrality ===

Neil Stevens of Redstate.com notes that Google says one thing and does another, tarnishing their reputation in the process. He lists where Google emphasizes support then does what they want in regards to shutting down access. <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2009/08/23/google-undermines-the-internet/ Google undermines the Internet, RedState.com, August 23, 2009]</ref>

=== Relationship with the Obama Administration ===

Consumer Watchdog crafted a 32-page report detailing how Google has inappropriately benefited from its close ties to the Obama Administration. [[NASA]]'s Moffett Airfield has been turned into a taxpayer-subsidized private airport for Google executives used for corporate junkets. NASA's Moffett Airfield is a short distance from Google's world headquarters. The report details, ''"A growing fleet of jets and helicopters stand ready to ferry the company's top executives near or far, for business or pleasure, for vacations or schmoozing, including at least three wintertime trips to the [[Caribbean]] and a trip by Google chief executive Eric Schmidt to the Cannes Film Festival."'' <ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1983792/consumer_watchdog_sends_issas_oversight_committee_google_report_showing_inappropriate/index.html Consumer Watchdog Sends Issa's Oversight Committee Google Report Showing Inappropriate Relationship with Obama Administration, RedOrbit.com, January 24, 2011]</ref>

==International Agitation==

Google's Map service is responsible for escalating tensions between foreign nations by radically misleading versions of current borders.

Google has been labeled "professionally irresponsible" for disseminated [[Cambodia]] territory, which is embroiled in a bitter diplomatic row with Thailand over the demarcation of the frontier. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/05/cambodia-google-idUSSGE61406G20100205 Cambodia blasts Google map of disputed Thai border, Reuters, February 5, 2010]</ref>

[[Costa Rica]] took offense to Google Maps version showing that a specific area of encampment was on Nicaraguan soil. The dispute that had ensued over Google's version of the Nicaragua-Costa Rica border has became rather serious. So much so that the secretary general of the [[Organization of American States]] had to intervene. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20021977-71.html Envoy to solve latest Google Maps border dispute? CNET, November 5, 2010</ref> <ref>[http://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/google-maps-blamed-for-border-dispute/ GOOGLE MAPS BLAMED for BORDER DISPUTE, Spectre Footnotes, November 11, 2010]</ref>

Google Maps was busy fixing another error in its map program of a port city that reignited border tensions between [[Germany]] and The Netherlands. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/21/google-maps-slipup-sparks-diplomatic-crisis/ Google Maps Blunder Reignites Centuries Old Border Dispute, Fox News, February 21, 2011]</ref>

===Egyptian Uprising===

Google executive Wael Ghonim helped with protesting [[Egypt]]'s rule of [[Hosni Mubarak]], calling for him to step down and organizing protests. He was detained by authorities and released after two weeks. Ghonim is credited as being a major factor in sparking Egypt's uprising. Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that Google is "very, very proud" of Wael Ghonim. <ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/02/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-says-company-is-proud-of-wael-ghonim-in-egypt.html Google CEO Eric Schmidt says company is 'very proud' of Egypt's Wael Ghonim, LA Times, February 15, 2011]</ref>

===Wi-Fi Snooping===

Google collected information from [[Wi-Fi]] networks as its street-view vans cruised neighborhoods around the globe, raising issues in more than 30 countries. The information Google gathered included e-mail fragments and passwords, alarming politicians and privacy and security advocates in Germany, France, and [[Spain]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/22/national-security-google-wi-fi-spy-scandal/ Is National Security Behind Google's Wi-Fi Spying?, Fox News, July 23, 2010]</ref> It was noted that Google supplies special mapping and search products to the U.S. military and intelligence community, with some Google employees enjoying top secret clearance to work with the government. Google said it was "accidental" data gathering. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, a senior [[Republican]] lawmaker, suggested that Google's data collection wasn't accidental and that it was "something to look at." Under the Democrat leadership, the [[FCC]] investigated but dropped further inquiry coincidently, just before a Google [[Democrat]] fundraiser was held. Many groups have been calling on Republican [[Darrell Issa]] to investigate Google's cozy relationship with the [[Obama administration]]. <ref>[http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/11/10/congress-must-investigate-google-obama-ties Congress Must Investigate Google-Obama Ties, National Legal and Policy Center, November 10, 2010]</ref>

*France: Privacy watchdog CNIL awarded its largest fine to date with a judgement of $141,300 against Google in relation to snooping. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/21/general-broadcasting-amp-entertainment-eu-france-google-fined_8366482.html France fines Google for Street View privacy breach, Forbes, March 21, 2011]</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.google-watch.org/ Google Watch]

[[Category: United States Businesses]]
[[Category:Google]]
[[Category:Websites]]

American Enterprise Institute

2012-09-18T01:52:17Z

Revmarkison:

[[Image:Aei.png|right|frame]]
The '''American Enterprise Institute''' (or '''American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research''') is a [[nonpartisan]] [[think-tank]] that publishes research articles, books and magazine editorials on subject matters ranging from foreign policy, economics, and national defense to political and social issues. Founded by [[William Baroody]], (1916 - 1980), its current chairman is [[Bruce Kovner]]. The American Enterprise Institute has supplied over 20 scholars for the administration of [[George W. Bush]], including Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, David Frum, and John Bolton. Some of its members are have liberal leanings, including [[Ben Wattenberg]] and [[Norman Ornstein]]. It hosts [[neoconservatives]] [[Irving Kristol]] and [[Richard Perle]].

==History==
In 1954, Baroody, a statistician who had worked for the government and for the [[Chamber of Commerce]] became executive vice-president of the American Enterprise Association; it was a small public policy research organization had been founded by Lewis Herold Brown in 1943.

As the sons of immigrants Baroody saw America as a land of opportunity, and at the Chamber of Commerce he learned that "competition of ideas is fundamental to a free society." He rejected the statism of the [[New Deal]], fearing the growth of governmental regulation and bureaucracy and the centralization of power in Washington. He soon signed up young, brilliant conservative economists including [[Milton Friedman]], [[Gottfried Haberler]], [[Paul W. McCracken]], and [[Glenn Campbell]]. In 1962, Baroody became president of the association and changed its name to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research..

Patient and low-keyed, Baroody had a knack for bringing together people with ideas. As [[William F. Buckley]] wrote, "he combined a gentleness of manner with a resolution of purpose and a conciliator's good nature." As head of AEI, Baroody helped to bring conservative ideas into the national public policy debate and helped achieve a new level of acceptance for views that had not previously been taken seriously by government and the media.

Baroody held family values and religion to be particularly important issues and made them the focus of studies at his institute. He believed that the debate on the legitimacy of the free enterprise system was about more than economics, and as a result, AEI paid more attention to religious thought and political theory than did comparable research centers more concerned with economics.

AEI, a tax exempt charitable institution, grew in size and influence under Baroody's leadership. He was a systematic fund-raiser, growing his budget from $115,000 in 1954 to $266,000 in 1960, thanks to corporate donors such as Allen Bradley, General Electric and Eli Lilly, as well as the Pew and Scaife families, among many others. By the late 1970s he had an annual budget of $8 million and about 125 staff employees. He provided ideas needed by such national conservative leaders as Barry Goldwater, Richard M. Nixon, and Gerald R. Ford. He brought tot the AEI such powerful figures as Melvin Laird, Bryce Harlow, Arthur Burns, Herbert Stein, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Ben Wattenberg. AEI scholars strongly supported free markets; opposed Communism; they favored market solutions instead of the use of government power. By 1980 AEI was the conservative counterpart of the older, more liberal Brookings Institution. Both provided staging points for new ideas and resting points for politicians out of office. Robert H. Bork praised AEI because it helped conservatives like himself who were “intellectually isolated, even beleaguered, on their own campuses.”

While many pundits were bemoaning American decline in the late 1970s , Baroody held was optimistic. Liberal scholar James MacGregor Burns credited [[Ronald Reagan]]’s victory in 1980 in part to the success of conservative efforts "to build their intellectual case and to use invigorated and broadened conservative ideas as vehicles to political power."
AEI scholars who served in the Reagan administration included Murray Weidenbaum (chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers), Jeane Kirkpatrick (ambassador to the United Nations), James Miller (chairman of the Federal Trade Commission), and David Gergen (director of communications).

Reagan’s eulogy proclaimed, "One of Bill Baroody's greatest accomplishments was in building an institution that said, 'Here is a place where you can develop your ideas,' that said to others, 'Here is a place you can turn to for advice,' that said to all of us who were concerned about our country's future, 'You are not alone.' "

In 1978, Baroody was succeeded as president of AEI by his son William J. Baroody, Jr., and became chairman of AEI's development committee, a post he retained until his death.

==Further reading==
* Abelson, Donald E. ''A Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy‎'' (2006) 367 pages

==Notable Scholars & Fellows==
:[[Paul Wolfowitz]]
:[[Joshua Muravchik]]
:[[Fred Thompson]]
:[[Ben Wattenberg]]
:[[Douglas Besharov]]
:[[David Frum]]
:[[Newt Gingrich]]
:[[Irving Kristol]]
:[[Jeane Kirkpatrick]]
:[[Michael Ledeen]]
:[[Philip I. Levy]]
:[[Michael Novak]]
:[[Norman Ornstein]] [http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.48,filter.all/scholar.asp]
:[[Richard Perle]]
:[[Sarath Rajapatirana]]
:[[Joel Schwartz]]
:[[John Yoo]]
:[[Dan Blumenthal]]
:[[John Bolton]]
:[[Lynne Cheney]]
:[[Frederick Kagan]]
:[[Robert A. Goldwin]]
:[[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]]

==See Also==
:[http://www.aei.org/ American Enterprise Institute official site]

====references====
<references/>

[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]

User:Revmarkison

2012-07-08T20:47:30Z

Revmarkison: Created page with "Rev. Arlo Markison presides over the First Church of Christ in Hopkinton, Indiana."

Rev. Arlo Markison presides over the First Church of Christ in Hopkinton, Indiana.

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-07-08T19:34:30Z

Revmarkison:

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that matter in the universe becomes more disordered over time when in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, bringing to mind the impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
#Thousands of years of intense selective breeding should have produced a new wolf species from domesticated dogs, yet dogs and wolves remain the same species.

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.
#Lungs never would have had to develop unless the animal was already on land, in which case, they would die before reproducing.
#There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no simmilar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement.

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>
# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328574.400-reptile-grew-featherlike-structures-before-dinosaurs.html</ref>

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Abortion

2012-07-08T19:11:17Z

Revmarkison: Include sentences about God's view of abortion.

[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|250px|An unborn child in the womb]]
'''Abortion''' is the induced termination of a [[pregnancy]],<ref>American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]</ref> often causing [[fetal pain]]. As of 2012, it is estimated there has been over 54 million babies murdered by abortion in the [[United States]] since 1973. Abortion is, by definition, a sin. The perpetrator will elicit God's wrath as punishment.

Abortion is a billion-dollar industry<ref>For example, Dr. George Tiller "estimated that he performed 250 to 300 late-term abortions in 2003, each costing an average of $6,000."[http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090327/D976JVSG4.html]</ref> in the [[United States]]<ref>Over 52,000,000 babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973.[http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1042]</ref> and Western Europe except for [[Ireland]], [[Malta]] and [[Poland]], where it has been abolished.<ref>http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=50451</ref> [[Abortion in Poland]] declined by 99% after [[communism]] was overthrown, and women's health has dramatically improved there due to fewer abortions.<ref>http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-poland.html</ref>

'''''About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their fetus (unborn child) decide not to abort'''''.<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/145703/abortion_foes_use_ultrasound__focus_on_the_family_budgets/ . Note, however, that other variables such as abortion-coercive settings may reduce this percentage.</ref> Millions of women who had an abortion later suffer psychologically or physically from it, and support groups exist to help.<ref>http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20020120abortion0120p3.asp</ref> Many victims of abortion find healing by speaking out against, and discouraging, similar harm to other mothers and their children.<ref>"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born," observed President [[Ronald Reagan]]. He also observed, "With me, abortion is not a problem of religion, it's a problem of the Constitution. I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child ''is not a living human being'', then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us."</ref>

"'''''Abortion doesn't solve your problems, it only creates different ones'''''," warned a full-page ad by women who had abortions.<ref>http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/signaturead/ad.pdf</ref> '''''Many women begin regretting their abortion before they even leave the abortion clinic'''''. In some cases, women begin regretting their abortion just before it is performed,<ref>In one case where a woman changed her mind from inside the abortion clinic, she "called her friend from inside the abortion clinic and arranged for her to come 'rescue' her." [http://www.40daysforlife.com/southfield/index.cfm?load=page&page=30]</ref> but are told by abortionists that it is too late to change their mind because they already signed a consent form (which is a lie - it is never too late to withdraw consent for an abortion).

'''''Abortion always ends the life of the unborn child, typically by dismemberment. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, future premature birth, mental illness, and other long-term health problems for the mother''''', as detailed below. Sometimes women die from abortion.<ref>See "Documented Incidents of 365 Women Who Have Been Killed by "Safe" and Legal Abortion." [http://abortionviolence.com/DEATHS.HTM 365 women who have been killed by 'Legal' abortion]</ref> Since abortion is deliberate and thought about in advance, it is comparable to a premeditated killing.<ref>First-degree murder is defined as "a killing which is deliberate and premeditated." [http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/first+degree+murder]</ref>

== Mental Health Risks From Abortion ==
A comprehensive review of literature, published in the ''British Journal of Psychiatry'' suggests that "there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion."<ref name="BJP">{{cite web|url = http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/A11.full#sec-3|title =Abortion, mental health and dental disease|publisher = [[British Journal of Psychiatry]]|quote=A comprehensive review of the literature suggests that there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion. Coleman (pp. 180–186) suggests that these risks need to be reflected in the delivery of abortion services, and raises the thorny issue that 90% of UK abortions are justified on the presumption that abortion actually reduces the risk to mental health associated with continuing the pregnancy. There is an increasing awareness of increased comorbid physical illness in patients with severe mental illness. Kisely and colleagues (pp. 187–193) found that the levels of advanced dental disease were increased threefold in patients with severe mental illness. The authors suggest that there needs to be improved recognition of this problem – reflected in a more proactive approach to dental hygiene in these patients.|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}</ref><ref name="DavenportMD">{{cite web|url = http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/major_study_links_suicide_and_other_mental_health_problems_to_abortion.html|title =Major Study Links Suicide and Other Mental Health Problems to Abortion|publisher = [[American Thinker]]|quote=An important meta-analysis published today in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry demonstrates that nearly 10% of mental health problems in women are directly attributable to abortion. "Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009," by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green University, shows that women with an abortion history have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and 155% increased risk of suicide. This meta-analysis combines 22 studies of 877,181 women, 163, 831 of whom have had abortions. A meta-analysis is an especially powerful type of study because it includes a large number of subjects, and by combining studies is much more reliable than a single study.|author=Mary L. Davenport, MD|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}</ref>

== Abortion and Breast Cancer ==
The vast 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> "A new study coming from researchers in [[Sri Lanka]] finds women who had abortions ... [had a] 3.42 [increased risk] ... compared with those who kept their baby. ... The Sri Lankan study is the fourth epidemiological study in fourteen months to report an abortion-breast cancer link, including studies from the U.S., China and Turkey."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/nat6451.html</ref> LifeNews also reported in 2010 that a [[National Cancer Institute]] researcher admitted there was a link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html</ref> Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy.<ref>http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm</ref> A study at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center published in 2009 confirmed a 40% increase in risk in breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/01/breast-cancer-oral-contraceptives-abortion-and-lies.html</ref><ref>It is undisputed that childbirth protects against breast cancer, and thus early termination of pregnancy must increase the risk of cancer for the mother compared to carrying that same pregnancy to birth.</ref> Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades.<ref>http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Tobacco-ChronologyJul98.htm</ref>
[[Image:Abortion Hurts Women.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Walk for Life rally]]
A new study on breast cancer in Turkey published in April 2009 in the peer-reviewed World Journal of Surgical Oncology found, through a surveying process, that induced abortion was a statistically significant cause of breast cancer risk. The study concludes, “Our findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk….”<ref>http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37</ref>

Specifically, the study found that Turkish women who received one or more induced abortions had a 66% higher risk of breast cancer than women who never had an abortion.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072903.html</ref> <ref>http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/090728/index.htm</ref>

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion.<ref>Janet R. Daling et al., "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion," 86 Journal of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584</ref><ref>http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm</ref> She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate."<ref>L.A. Daily News, Sept. 1997.</ref> Similarly, an early study published in Japan in 1957 showed that women who have abortions have a much higher risk of breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.<ref>Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48:1-63.</ref>

In a peer-reviewed medical journal, Karen Malec observed that:<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref>

:Thirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link [between abortion and] breast cancer have been published. Twenty-nine report risk elevations. Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., a specialist in breast cancer an a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, has explained the physiology and epidemiology of the abortion-breast cancer link. She made the following observation:<ref>Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, "The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link," 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).</ref>

:This past August in Minneapolis, Patrick Carroll, director of the Pension and Population Research Institute of London, presented a paper to the largest gathering of statisticians in North America. '''He showed that abortion was the best predictor of breast cancer in Britain.''' Breast cancer is the only cancer in Britain which has its highest incidence and mortality rate among the upper rather than lower social classes. Abortion before a full term pregnancy and late pregnancy were the best explanations for this incidence. He also found that there had been a 70% increase risk of breast cancer between 1971 and 2002 and that for women between 50 and 54 years of age incidence was highly correlated with abortion.

Demographic evidence of abortion causing breast cancer includes the following. Breast cancer rates are far lower in Western countries that prohibited abortion than in those that promoted it. Ireland, which virtually bans abortion, reportedly has a lifetime rate of breast cancer of only 1 in 13, nearly half the rate of 1 in 7.5 in the United States.<ref>"Probability of breast cancer in American Women," National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005); K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, "Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight," Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).</ref> The rate of breast cancer increases steadily as one travels from Ireland, where abortion is illegal, to Northern Ireland, where abortion is legal but rare, to England, where abortion is common. <ref> R. O'Reilly, "New weapon in war against breast cancer," The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); "Portugal-abortion referendum," Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).</ref>

In Romania, abortion was illegal under two decades of rule by the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the country enjoyed one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the entire world during that time, far lower than comparable Western countries. Romania's breast cancer rate was an astounding one-sixth the rate of the United States.<ref>A. Khan, "The role of fat in breast cancer," The Independent (May 18, 1998).</ref> But after the execution of Ceausescu on Christmas Day, 1989, Romania has taken the opposite approach, embracing abortion to the point that Romania now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.<ref>N. Abdullaev, "Russians are quickest to marry and divorce," Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).</ref> One Romanian observer decried, "The liberalization of abortions in Romania in 1990, the significant increase of the number of abortions at relatively short intervals, determined a rise in the incidence of breast and uterine cervix cancer in my country."<ref>Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).</ref>

Studies on rats, which are an accepted method for identifying causes of cancer in humans, further confirm that abortion does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer. As Dr. [[Joel Brind]] observed, "Researchers also widely admit to the biological plausibility of abortion as an independent cause of breast cancer, through the estrogen-mediated stimulation of breast growth in the absence of differentiation. This was demonstrated experimentally in rats in the landmark experiments of Russo and Russo."<ref>[[Joel Brind]], "Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data," J. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to
carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).</ref> Additional scientific information on the abortion-breast cancer link is available [http://www.bcpinstitute.org here].

An expert (Dr. Lynn Rosenberg) hired to defend abortion felt compelled to admit, under cross-examination, that a woman increases her risk for breast cancer by having an abortion compared to carrying her pregnancy to childbirth:<ref>http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm</ref>

:Question by the attorney: 'So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she carries the pregnancy to term, [is that] correct?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'Probably, yes.'

:Question: 'Looking at that another way, let's compare two women. Let's say both got pregnant at age 15-- one terminates the pregnancy, but the other carries the pregnancy to term. And both women go on to get married and have two kids, say, at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher for the woman who had an abortion at age 15 or the woman who had a baby at age 15, all other things being equal?'

:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15.'

Despite the overwhelming evidence -- and inescapable logic -- for abortion increasing breast cancer, promoters of abortion cite flawed articles in an attempt to deny the link.<ref>The flaws in these articles are exposed in [[Harvard abortion study]] and [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf].</ref>

As Dr. Lanfranchi has explained:<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf</ref>

:Well-documented breast physiology accounts for the fact that oral contraceptives and abortion are risk factors for breast cancer. There is an effort to suppress this information by federal agencies and those in academic medicine. Without this information, women cannot make a fully informed choice about their method of fertility control or about whether to maintain an unplanned pregnancy. Medical ethics demands that they be informed.

Pro-choice should include ''informed'' choice.<ref>The Archdiocese of St. Louis, for example, remarked about abortions and increased risk for breast cancer: "To dismiss that link is irresponsible." [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5620863.html]</ref> Yet efforts continue to suppress awareness that abortion increases breast cancer. Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's "study" of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed as explained in [[National Cancer Institute on Abortion]].

Just as organizations denied or failed to disclose the connection between smoking and lung cancer, many organizations aligned with [[liberal]] politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection.

[[File:Smelliesdoublecrochet.jpg|right|thumb|250px| The Smellie's double crochet abortion tool was used to grab and forcibly remove the fetus from the womb.]]

== Abortion Causes Future Harm with Premature Births ==

"At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions (IAs)."<ref>Brent Rooney and Byron C. Calhoun, "Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births," 8 J. Am. Physicians & Surgeons 46 (Summer 2003). [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf]</ref> Premature birth tragically causes brain damage, and an array of other severe, lifelong injuries ranging from Cerebral Palsy to blindness, or even death, and few mothers would knowingly increase the risk of that happening. "There are at least seventeen (17) studies that have found that previous induced abortions increase preterm birth risk” and thereby increase debilitating Cerebral Palsy in children."<ref>Brent Rooney, Letter, 96 European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 239 (2001) (citations omitted).</ref>

In 2008, the generally pro-abortion British medical journal, ''The Lancet'', admitted that a procedure often used in abortion increase the risk of premature birth:<ref>Dr, Jay D. Iams, Dr. Robert Romero, Jennifer F. Culhane (PhD), Dr. Robert L. Goldenberg. Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the morbidity and mortality of preterm birth. Lancet 2008;371:164-175. While the text of this article conceals the connection with abortion, it cites as support for its claims two studies showing how abortion increases risk of premature birth: the 2004 'Ancel' study of ten (10) European countries and the 2005 'Moreau' study that used French subjects. Ancel P-Y, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizoilles M-J, Kaminski M. History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey. Human Reproduction. 2004;112:734-740. Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY et al. Previous I induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery; Results of the EPIPAGE study. British J Obstetrics Gynaecology 2005; 112:430-437.</ref>

:"For example, greater public and professional awareness of evidence that repeated uterine instrumentation--eg, uterine curettage or endometrial biopsy--is associated with increased risk of subsequent preterm birth might over time influence decision-making about the procedure."

Researchers Rooney and Calhoun observed:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:Large studies have reported a doubling of [early premature birth] EPB risk from two prior IAs. Women who had four or more IAs experienced, on average, nine times the risk of [extremely early premature births] XPB, an increase of 800 percent. These results suggest that women contemplating IA should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care.

Demographic evidence of how abortion increases premature birth includes the following:

:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): "[T]he abortion rate for black women has been approximately '''three times''' as high as that for white women (range: 2.6--3.1) since 1991"<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm (emphasis added)</ref>

:''Science Daily'''s report on a study by the Washington University School of Medicine: "African-American women are '''three times''' more likely to deliver babies three to 17 weeks prematurely than Caucasian women"<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070209074144.htm (emphasis added)</ref>

In 2002 an article entitled "Preterm Birth: A Continuing Challenge" noted that premature births are abnormally high in the United States, citing a study that observed that a previous abortion is a "risk factor[] for both infertility and preterm birth."<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595132/</ref>

The rate of premature birth is elevated by the same amount as the abortion rate, as expected if abortion increases the risk of premature birth.

== Other Health Risks from Abortion ==

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in 2007 that:<ref>''Gonzales v. Carhart'', 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1634 (2007).</ref>

:While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano ''et al.'' as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ''ibid.''

A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.<ref>D.C. Reardon, P.G. Ney, F.J. Scheuren, J.R. Cougle, P.K. Coleman, T. Strahan, "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women," 95 Southern Medical Journal 8, at 834-41 (August 2002).</ref>

In [[England]], the "Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health." The medical royal college warned that women who have abortions may be at risk of mental health problems.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece</ref> A New Zealand study found that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16405636</ref> The researcher in this study, who was not pro-life, was shaken by the study and had to go to four journals before he could find one who would publish it. <ref>http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html</ref>

The study concludes with the following statement:
{{cquote|These findings are inconsistent with the current consensus on the psychological effects of abortion. In particular, in its 2005 statement on abortion, the American Psychological Association concluded that “well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age” (American Psychological Association, 2005). This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion (Cougle et al., 2003; Gissler et al., 1996; Reardon & Cougle, 2002). <ref>http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html</ref>}}

Professor David Fergusson, lead author of the New Zealand study stated:
{{cquote|It borders on scandalous that one of the most common surgical procedures performed on young women is so poorly researched and evaluated. If this were Prozac or Vioxx, reports of associated harm would be taken much more seriously with more careful research and monitoring procedures." <ref>http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060120-091648-6456r.htm</ref>}}

Another study published in the OB/GYN Survey detailed long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortions.<ref>J.M. Thorp, Jr., K.E. Hartmann, and E.M. Shadigian, "Long-Term Physical & Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence," 58 OB/GYN Survey 1, at 67-79 (2003)</ref>

Suicide rates among women who had abortions are six times higher than women who gave birth in the prior year.<ref>http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/Page8.html</ref> Overall, deaths from suicide, homicide and accidents were 248% higher after an abortion, as found by a 13-year study in Finland of its entire population.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

In the United States, only one state (Missouri) requires that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion.<ref>Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.080 prohibits an abortion by a physician "who does not have clinical privileges at a hospital which offers obstetrical or gynecological care located within thirty miles of the location at which the abortion is performed or induced."</ref> In the other 49 states, an abortion patient can and often is left without prompt medical care by the treating physician.

One of the largest abortion providers in the United States, the Metropolitan Medical Associates of New Jersey, was shut down in 2007 by state health officials after one of its botched abortions left a 20-year-old woman in a coma for more than four weeks. She "became severely ill following the abortion and was transferred to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where she needed blood transfusions and had her uterus removed. She also suffered a stroke due to the serious blood loss and had one of her lungs collapse."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state2137.html</ref> The State of New Jersey had shut down the same facility in 1993 also.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
__TOC__ 

==Abortion Alternatives==
[[Optionline]] provides consultants that connects individuals to nearby pregnancy centers that offer the following services: free pregnancy tests and pregnancy information; Information about the risks of abortion and the morning after pill; medical services, including [[STD]] tests; early ultrasounds and pregnancy confirmation. <ref>http://www.pregnancycenters.org/</ref> In addition, some of these centers provide information regarding free housing to women who are facing housing concerns.<ref>http://www.pregnancycenters.org/</ref>

The primary alternative to abortion is adoption. [[Liberty Godparent Foundation]] is a [[Christian]] organization focused on improving the lives of unwed pregnant teens, babies and adoptive families by providing two alternatives, The Liberty Godparent Maternity Home and Family Life Services Adoption Agency.<ref>http://www.godparent.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=59</ref>. [[Catholic Social Services]] provides adoption assistance to people of all beliefs in addition to supporting families in need.

== Abortion Industry and How It Targets Minority Communities ==
[[File:4287336112 d3f9126c99.jpg|right|thumb|325px|According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of [[Planned Parenthood]] abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/muriel215/4287336112/ Flickr, see Creative commons license agreement)] ]]
"Each day '''1,786''' African American children are aborted." According to the [[U.S.]] Census of 2006, African Americans are at 1.96 birth rate which is beneath the replacement level of 2.1. <ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1685410938.html African American Pro-Life Group Holds Protest at NAACP] Christian News Network, July 13, 2009</ref> At the continued rate, [[racism]] by abortion will decimate the black population of the U.S.

According to writer George Grant, the author of ''Killing Angel'':

"During the 1980s when [[Planned Parenthood]] shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods...Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools....None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.” <ref>http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm</ref>

Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 was 42.7% of its total abortions. <ref>http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT</ref>. However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.<ref>http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT</ref>

According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: "An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html</ref>

== Political Support of Abortion ==
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.

There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles.

=== Politics, demographics and expected tipping point in 2020 for pro-life cause in America ===

''See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Global atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[liberal]]

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== History of Abortion ==
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|250px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] advocated induced abortion.<ref>http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>]]
''Please also see:'' [[History of abortion]]

The father of [[medicine]], [[Hippocrates]], expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical [[Oath]] long before [[Christianity]].

The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the [[atheism|atheist]] and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.<ref>http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract</ref>}}

[[Population control]] is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html</ref>

Prior to 1973 abortion was illegal in most of the United States, though a few states (such as Hawaii and New York) allowed it with restrictions.<ref>''A Timeline of Reproductive Rights'' [http://ecampus.bentley.edu/org/wc/reproductiverights.html The Women's Center]</ref> The 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 lawful under the [[U.S. Constitution]] up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb, and an accompanying decision issued the same day captioned [[Doe v. Bolton]] essentially legalized abortion in the unlimited discretion of the abortionist at any time during pregnancy, up to and including birth. Conservatives immediately criticized these decisions as examples of [[Judicial Activism]].

In 2008, worldwide there were approximately 115,000 abortions done per day.<ref>http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html</ref> In 2008, approximately 83% of all abortions were performed in developing countries and 17% occurred in developed countries.<ref>http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html</ref>

States may regulate abortion, such as requiring a 24-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors. Abortion clinics often fail to comply with the health standards of surgical facilities, and States can require compliance (but often do not, resulting in discomfort and harm to the victims of abortion). Many abortionists lack hospital admitting privileges at nearby facilities, so women having complications must go on their own to emergency rooms to see physicians unfamiliar with what actually happened. For any other operation the cost of treating complications is included in the cost of the operation, but for abortions the abortion clinics take their money and typically do not pay for the care of complications.

The more pro-abortion the State regulations are, the larger the number of abortion clinics it will have. [[Arizona]], though a pro-life State, has a regulatory system that results in twelve abortion clinics operating within its borders. In contrast, [[Mississippi]] has only one abortion clinic, and [[Missouri]] has only two.

=== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ===
''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|290px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]‎In 1942 [[Adolf Hitler]] declared:
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html</ref>}}

After [[World War II]], the War Crimes Tribunal indicted ten [[Nazi]] leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortion," which the tribunal considered a "crime against humanity."<ref>http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_25.asp#But%20didn%E2%80%99t%20Hitler%20oppose%20abortion?</ref>

== Atheists and abortion ==
The [[Barna Group]] found concering [[Atheism and Morality|atheism and morality]] that those who hold to the worldviews of [[atheism]] or [[agnosticism]] in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard</ref>

==American Liberals and Abortion==
According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-abortion views. <ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref>

==Evolutionary Thought and Abortion==
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Liberals are more likely to advocate the evolutionary paradigm than conservatives]]. [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of aborting babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>http://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>http://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>

==A Poll on Reasons for Abortions==

[[File:AbortionReasons.jpg‎|thumb|400px| Primary reasons women reported for undergoing abortions]]

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is not a [[conservative]] or [[pro-life]] organization, conducted a poll of more than 1,200 patients undergoing induced abortions at 11 large-scale [[abortion facilities]] in the United States. The women were asked to identify reasons for seeking abortion, singling out the primary reason. An additional 38 women at four sites were interviewed in-depth.<ref name="agiSurvey">[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf Lawrence Finer, et al., "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives", ''Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health'', September 2005]</ref>

The poll omitted any reference to whether the women were able to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before choosing to have an abortion. For the vast majority of women who have abortion, the reason is a lack of knowledge about the unborn child as displayed by an ultrasound. Because a large part of their campaign funds are bankrolled by the abortion industry, liberals are frequent opponents to laws making available ultrasound treatment for patients not certain of the decision. Some physicians have been reported intimidating and pressuring patients to continue with an abortion after the patient has had a change of heart, either on the operating table or before surgery. One doctor, who was also employed as a spokesman for a prominent liberal pro-abortion think tank, reportedly forced a patient to undergo the procedure in order to fill a quota on insurance claims.

Among reasons provided to the women as part of the poll, the two most common selections were "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" (74%) and "I can't afford a baby now" (73%).<ref name="agiSurvey"/> Concerns about their own health were mentioned by only 13% of the women, while only 12% mentioned concerns about the baby's health, though only 3% and 4% respectively gave those as their primary reason for seeking abortion.<ref name="agiSurvey"/>

Interestingly, only 14% indicated "[[husband]] or partner wants me to have an abortion" as a reason, down from 24% in a previous survey in 1987.<ref name="agiSurvey"/> This conflicts with research on women post-abortion, among whom 64% reported feeling pressured by others to abort.<ref name="reardon">[http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortionFactSheet.pdf David Reardon, "Forced Abortion in America", April 2010]</ref>

What is often ignored in studies of why women submit to abortions is an ambivalence by some in early pregnancy. Such ambivalence typically resolves when the mother becomes more aware of her unborn child, as displayed by an [[ultrasound]].<ref>Lederman, ''Psychosocial Adaptation in Pregnancy'', 1984</ref><ref>"The Unwanted Pregnancy," ''Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology'', 1970, Cited in Gardner, ''Abortion: The Personal Dilemma'', 1972</ref><ref>Nichols and Humenick, ''Childbirth Education: Practice, Research, and Theory'', 1988</ref>

==Statistics on abortion==

* As of 2012, it is estimated there has been over 54 million babies murdered by abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. After reaching 25 percent from a high of over 1.6 million in the year 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million infants murdered by abortion a year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI).<ref>[http://www.christianliferesources.com/?5511 National Right to Life Factsheet], January 2012, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). The CDC ordinarily develops its annual report on the basis of data received from 52 central health agencies (50 states plus New York City and District of Columbia). AGI obtains its numbers from direct surveys of abortionists conducted every few years.</ref> (Privacy laws and likely desire to keep this silent holocaust from raising alarm hinders data collection on abortion. CDC researchers have admitted it probably undercounts the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform. Abortions from CA and NH have not been counted by the CDC since 1998, and reports from other states are also missing for some years.)<ref>[]http://www.christianliferesources.com/?5511 National Right to Life Factsheet, January 2012</ref>

* Approximately 22% of all U.S. pregnancies ended in abortion (excluding miscarriages).<ref>Jones RK and Kooistra, K., Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2011, 43(1):41-50.</ref>

* Only about 1 percent each year are attributed to rape and incest. 40% of women ages 15 to 44 have had at least one abortion. 4 out of 10 teen pregnancies end in murder by abortion. Based on the rate of abortion, it was estimated (2000) that 43 percent of American women would have at least one abortion by the age of 45.

* 7 out of 10 U.S. women are sexually active (usually as fornicators) but do not want to become pregnant.<ref>Alan Guttmacher Institute, Facts in Brief,Induced Abortion, 2000</ref>

* Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions. 57% of all women having abortions between 15-44 are in their 20’s. 36% of non-Hispanic women are abortions were white, 30% are non-Hispanic black, and 25% are hispanic.<ref>Jones RK, Finer LB and Singh S, Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2010.</ref>

* 37% of women killing babies by abortion were Protestant, (include those who identified as “Christian” but who did not specify a denomination) while 28% were Catholic, and 20% identified themselves as born-again, evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist (in 2000, some 13% of abortion patients aged 18 and older identified as born-again or evangelical before the question was reworded slightly for the 2008 survey), while 27% gave no religious affiliation, increasing from 22% in 2000. (Protestants, were underrepresented among those committing abortion (In proportion to the total number of Protestants nationwide), and the relative abortion rate for this group was lower than the rate for all women.) <ref>[https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf, Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients], 2008</ref>

* Although 66% of women having abortions had some type of health insurance, 57% paid for their abortion out of pocket. Among women with private health insurance, 63% paid out of pocket.<ref>https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf</ref>

== Scientist on abortion ==
Professor Vladimir Krčméry, Rector of the University of St.Elizabeth and the holder of two honorary doctorates made following public claim regarding abostion:
{{cquote|I consider abortion for being a deliberate killing of an unborn child who cannot defend itself, and therefore it is medically and ethically unjustifiable and absurd. My opinion is not based on any religious reasons, but on the civil and scientific ones. It is the opinion of a member of the Royal College of physicians, a member of the American College of physicians and a candidate for the Nobel Prize.}}<ref>{{cite web
|author=Vladimír Krčméry
|title=Stanovisko-Krcmery (public claim by Krcmery)
|publisher=CBR Europe
|location=Slovakia
|url=http://web.pravonazivot.sk/stanovisko-krcmery/
|language=Slovak
|access date=06.05.2012
|quote=}}</ref>

==Ultrasound images==

*http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/frames.htm
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/drakelelane/388759116/
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/13_weeks.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/ultrasound_3d.htm
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/triple_jump.htm

== See Also ==
*[[Conservapedia:Pro-life Project|Conservapedia Pro-life Project]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Abortion Directory of abortion related articles]
*[http://www.investigatemagazine.com/mar3abrt.htm Abortion and breast cancer in New Zealand]
*[[Abortion and the Bible]]
*[[Abortion and eugenics]]
*[[Abortion Facts]]
*[[Abortion funding]]
*[[Abortion genocide]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Abortion rates by US state]]
*[[Abortionist]]
*[[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]
*[[More News/Abortion|Articles about '''Abortion''' from "More News"]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Separate Life|Essay on abortion]]
*[[Eugenics]]
*[[Fetus]]
*[[Harvard abortion study]]
*[[Abortion breast cancer studies]]
*[[Homosexual activists and abortion]]
*[[Margaret Sanger]]
*[http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf Minnesota official abortion statistics]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Planned Parenthood]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]
*[[Taxpayer-funded abortion]]

==External Links==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Abortion Abortion] by [[CreationWiki]]
* [http://www.abortionfacts.com/ Abortion Facts]
* [http://www.carm.org/abortion.htm Abortion] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
* [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ LifeSiteNews.com]
* [http://www.ProLifeOnCampus.com/ Pro Life on Campus]
* [http://www.aim.org/wls/category/abortion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Abortion], [[Accuracy In Media]]
{{Abortion}}
{{Liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]