Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal denial

2009-08-14T21:10:34Z

Trustworthiness: /* Evolution and Hitler */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Not Fair! ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::::::::: It is a good article and it cites a [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf solid study] in its references. However, there is something I've noticed about many controversial issues: for every study strongly asserting one thing, there'll be another asserting just the [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280 opposite]. Perhaps one is a legitimate study and the other is merely [[junk science]] [[propaganda]] - but if I assume as much, what am I to base that conclusion on? Other studies of the same nature? My personal [[ideology]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:58, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: Feebasfactor, you seem to be saying there is no such thing as truth. Well, there is truth and studies and logic can find it. In the case of abortion increasing breast cancer, both studies and logic support it. Only [[liberal denial]] stands in the way of everyone recognizing the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:49, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::Hmm, I'm sorry, that's not quite what I wanted to say. I agree there's truth, I suppose I just think it's hard to find sometimes, like when some studies actually point the other way. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:10, 14 February 2008 (EST)

<---undent
It really is a question on the nature of scientific knowledge. Given that humans are imperfect, we must interpret our environment imperfectly. The tools of science, mathematics, and statistics help us describe that reality, and religion helps us give it meaning and purpose. What happens when our scientific knowledge collides with our moral understanding of the world? Do we change our morals? Of course not. Do we change scientific fact? No, certainly not. The only choice is to take those facts, and use our morals to understand them better. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the critic above is right, and that breast cancer and abortion are unrelated (hypothetically!) That doesn't make abortion morally right. It doesn't affect the morality of abortion in the least. Abortion is wrong either way. It seems silly to hang onto an idea in order to support a moral reality---we already know what is moral, we don't need to twist science to support it. Science has a different role. [[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Nice try in expressing [[liberal denial]] in an attractive way. It's still [[liberal denial]]. Would you also deny that 2+2=4? The increase in breast cancer caused by abortion is no less logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:: Doesn't 2+2=10? [[User:Eris|Eris]] 18:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::Sir, I never denied your assertion about breast cancer and abortion. I was making a more general point about the nature of knowledge and morality, and the fact that knowledge changes, while morality is timeless/permanent and cannot be altered by scientific fact, one way or the other. I must say, your ad hominem attack was quite unjustified.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:41, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your general point is quite correct. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: I reread your posting, RobertK, and it does implicitly deny that abortion causes breast cancer. I don't know why you deny that now. The clear theme of your posting is that abortion does not cause breast cancer, but can be immoral anyway. Abortion does increase the risk of breast cancer regardless of its immorality, and let's not pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::With all respect, Mr S, I think you misread my posting. PJR apparently read ''all'' the words. I set up a ''hypothetical'' situation in which the two things, abortion and breast cancer, are not linked. Hypothetical means, basically, let's pretend. I used a hypothetical to show that it can be dangerous to look for moral teachings in science, since morality is a permanent, unchanging quality of the Divine, whereas science is the imperfect human approach to understanding the natural world. To base moral decisions on science is a fool's errand. Abortion is either moral or immoral, and whether or not it is related to breast cancer is a matter of science, not of morality. If this issue is too complex as stated, I can try to make it simpler for you, but it is important...it goes to the heart of how to approach moral decision making.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 22:14, 14 February 2008 (EST)
:::::I think it was just a misunderstanding... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:27, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::: A few comments: First, rereading your (RobertK's) post, whilst I am not changing my comment that your general point is quite correct, the second-last sentence ("It seems silly ...") does appear as though it was written from the perspective that the scientific argument in this case is wrong. Personally, and because this is not explicit and not clear and may not be so, I don't believe that it's grounds for criticism, but perhaps that's what Andy was referring to. Regarding your latest post, whilst I don't ''really'' disagree with anything you said, I would qualify/clarify it by saying that if something is immoral, it will have consequences, so one should expect to be able to find those consequences, and science might be very useful for this. There is therefore nothing wrong with citing scientific evidence, even though, as you say, the scientific evidence should not be the ''basis'' of the moral argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

===Sources in the Abortion Article===

The sources got brought up earlier in this discussion, so I thought I'd quickly skim through them

* [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf JPands] states that giving birth decreases the risk of breast cancer, not that an abortion will actually increase it relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm The BCP Institute] states that abortion will increase the risk of breast cancer relative to carrying out the pregnancy, however does not state that abortion will increase the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm The Abortion Breast Cancer page] states that women who give birth will have a lower risk of breast cancer than those who abort, however does not state that abortion increases the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant.

My understanding from the reading of these is that although a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at a heightened risk of cancer compared to if they had gone ahead with the childbirth, a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will '''not''' be at any increased risk relative to a person who did not get pregnant in the first place. Therefore it is more correct to say that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than saying that it actually increase the risk of abortion.

Having said that, I haven't had time to review the sources not available on the internet, or properly read through all of the ones provided. That said, if they follow the general theme which permeates both the neutral and conservative views then the answer to CarolineMilton's original anecdote is that the person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at the same risk of breast cancer as the abstinent virgin who never got pregnant in the first place.

Feel free to refute me if my reading was in error. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 05:50, 14 February 2008 (EST)

: Your summary of a sample of the articles is a distortion. Abortion does increase a pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer and she should be told that. The increase in risk is not merely due to a lack of childbirth, but even if it were, that is still an increase in risk and the woman should still be told that. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I will neither agree nor disagree at this time, because I have not had sufficient time to properly read through the sources. Perhaps you could assist me by providing the specific section of a source which states that abortion increases the risk independently of child birth.

::That said I do believe that a medical patient should be given all available information, it forms the basis of consent in medicine. That said, the information needs to be delivered properly, if my original summary was correct then it would be wrong to say that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, rather it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings. I'll have a closer look through the sources when I get home, expect an answer then, although if you point to the specific section which states that abortion increases the risk without considering childbirth that would be a great help. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 17:01, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: TheGuy, you're still fighting the truth. A pregnant woman considering [[abortion]] makes a choice: increase her risk of breast cancer by having the abortion, or not. The doctor should tell her that the procedure increases her risk of having breast cancer. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::: TheGuy, here are a few sources asserting links between abortion and breast cancer independant of the cancer-risk reducing effect of childbirth.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf] [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf] There are others quoted in the [[abortion]] arcticle. Read them through and consider. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:20, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::I apologise, I don't have time at the moment to conduct extensive research on the topics. Although I will concede that the articles do mention that abortion can increase risk independent of childbirth, the overwhelming number of studies seem to show that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than being an independent risk factor, a view echoed in both the sources provided. Again, I cannot properly comment until I have adequately reviewed the studies.

:::::Andy, I have already stated that I believe that medical patients should be informed of all the risks surrounding their electives. However, care must be taken in order to ensure that this information is accurate. If it is shown that the risk of breast cancer is increased independent of childbirth then by all means the woman should be informed that abortion will elevate her chances of getting breast cancer. However, if a majority of studies show that abortion only increases risk relative to a person who carries out the childbirth then the woman should be informed that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides, a correct statement which does not unduly incite fear or distort the facts. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 18:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: TheGuy, you would have made a good apologist for the tobacco industry. It denied increasing the risk of lung cancer for decades. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Your attempt at obfuscation by restating that as "abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides" is as confusing as it is nonsensical. "Fails to provide the decrease" is a compound negative, and an example of [[liberal obfuscation]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)

No I would not make a good apologist for the tobacco industry, because smoking does increase the risk of lung cancer independently of any other factors. The issue at hand is whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer independently to the decease in risk offered by birth.

Assuming that my position is correct, then it would be wrongful to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Consider the following scenario:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

My understanding is that both of these would have the same risk of getting breast cancer, therefore it would be wrong to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Instead, if we add a third person:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

''Person C gets pregnant and gives birth''

In this case, person C would be at a lower risk of breast cancer to person A or B, therefore it is not that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, instead it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings.

If we do insist on stating that abortion leads to an increase in the risk of breast cancer then we might as well say abstinance does the same thing, as it prevents a person getting pregnant, which in turn prevents them from giving birth which in turn prevents them from getting a decrease in risk of breast cancer.

And yes I am aware of the studies that abortion independently leads to breast cancer, however I have not had time to research them properly, and do not like commenting on things I know nothing about. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 19:42, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::Nice effort, but there's not much point in trying to educate those who either are incapable or unwilling to understand statistics. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::Exactly what is the purpose of this Wiki? It seems that one conservative here has been out-argued by many, many more conservatives; therefore, if the purpose of this Wiki is to broadcast the generally conservative viewpoint, then the page should be duly edited. Otherwise, we might have to accuse the wiki manager of fascism, which is a liberal philosophy.

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

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

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

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

== 'Hollywood Values' ==

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

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

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

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

::(Sorry if that seemed like a bit of a non-sequitur, I actually posted that in the wrong article talk page) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Fall of communism in Europe ==
Shouldn't some credit also be given to [[Margaret Thatcher]]? Our article on her partially addresses this, but it is because of her that free market capitalism's successes were demonstrated to Europe. While Reagan may have helped end communism in Europe, Thatcher definitely made the alternative more appealing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia... ==
But this page reads more like a tabloid article than anything. "Top ten instances of liberal denial"? According to who, exactly? It's no wonder that this website is so widely regarded as a joke when you have pages like this one dedicated to ignorant generalisations about so called 'liberals'. Maybe if you dedicated more time toward writing articles on things like history, and less time making bigoted assumptions about everyone, people would start taking this website seriously. Unlikely, though.
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]]

:You thought way wrong, as you have obviously discovered. Here you shall learn that denial is the hallmark of every liberal. In fact, liberals often shockingly deny that they are liberals! However, they are easily detected by their frequent use of mockery and sighs. Speaking of which, I suspect you are a liberal. I would ask you to explain your positions on a number of issues, including gun control, censorship of school prayer, abortion, and intelligent design, but I am already 95% certain of those positions. Gladstone, indeed. [[User:AodhMor|AodhMor]] 12:37, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

== Justifying statement 3 ==

On line 3, it states that "the intellectual justification for Hitler's attempt to build a master Aryan race was the theory of evolution". I see no proof in this. Can someone please provide a source for such information?

: Did you look yourself? It took me less than one minute to find a source: [http://www.christiantreasury.com/Apologetics/Apologetic_Atheism.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Your source, Aschlafly, clearly has an agenda. Can you find a neutral source?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:11, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
: So the strength of their argument doesn't count, only your opinion that they have an agenda? I don't know what makes you think that they have an agenda, but I reckon by the same logic that ''you'' have an agenda in asking, so should we dismiss your question just as readily? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: Excellent point, Philip. AdenJ, ''everyone'' has an "agenda" and it is absurd to pretend otherwise. You're not fooling anyone, AdenJ, to the extent you may pretend not to have an agenda. This site exists in part because we reject the falsehoods of other sites (such as Wikipedia) that pretend to be neutral when, of course, they really aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:35, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

And I was so sure I had fooled you! Darn it!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 10:25, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

On the second list, item number 3: What belief? Just curious. And how is murder the logical conclusion of atheism? As far as I know, the atheist population has a lower crime rate and much lower murder rate than the rest of the population, in the US at least.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:14, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Evolution and Hitler ==

This article says Liberals deny that "the intellectual justification for Hitler's attempt to build a master Aryan race was the theory of evolution." That's actually inaccurate. Hitler applied the concept of "survival of the fittest," as proposed in ''The Descent of Man''. Survival of the fittest and evolution are different concepts. "Evolution" refers to the cumulative changes in a species over time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection. More details here: [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html]
:More evidence on that note: [http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ Kara Rogers's article], [http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/SocDarw.htm a few paragraphs from the College of DuPage] Cheers, —[[User talk:Trustworthiness|Trustworthiness]]

Talk:Liberal denial

2009-08-14T21:10:22Z

Trustworthiness: /* Evolution and Hitler */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Not Fair! ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::::::::: It is a good article and it cites a [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf solid study] in its references. However, there is something I've noticed about many controversial issues: for every study strongly asserting one thing, there'll be another asserting just the [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280 opposite]. Perhaps one is a legitimate study and the other is merely [[junk science]] [[propaganda]] - but if I assume as much, what am I to base that conclusion on? Other studies of the same nature? My personal [[ideology]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:58, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: Feebasfactor, you seem to be saying there is no such thing as truth. Well, there is truth and studies and logic can find it. In the case of abortion increasing breast cancer, both studies and logic support it. Only [[liberal denial]] stands in the way of everyone recognizing the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:49, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::Hmm, I'm sorry, that's not quite what I wanted to say. I agree there's truth, I suppose I just think it's hard to find sometimes, like when some studies actually point the other way. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:10, 14 February 2008 (EST)

<---undent
It really is a question on the nature of scientific knowledge. Given that humans are imperfect, we must interpret our environment imperfectly. The tools of science, mathematics, and statistics help us describe that reality, and religion helps us give it meaning and purpose. What happens when our scientific knowledge collides with our moral understanding of the world? Do we change our morals? Of course not. Do we change scientific fact? No, certainly not. The only choice is to take those facts, and use our morals to understand them better. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the critic above is right, and that breast cancer and abortion are unrelated (hypothetically!) That doesn't make abortion morally right. It doesn't affect the morality of abortion in the least. Abortion is wrong either way. It seems silly to hang onto an idea in order to support a moral reality---we already know what is moral, we don't need to twist science to support it. Science has a different role. [[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Nice try in expressing [[liberal denial]] in an attractive way. It's still [[liberal denial]]. Would you also deny that 2+2=4? The increase in breast cancer caused by abortion is no less logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:: Doesn't 2+2=10? [[User:Eris|Eris]] 18:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::Sir, I never denied your assertion about breast cancer and abortion. I was making a more general point about the nature of knowledge and morality, and the fact that knowledge changes, while morality is timeless/permanent and cannot be altered by scientific fact, one way or the other. I must say, your ad hominem attack was quite unjustified.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:41, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your general point is quite correct. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: I reread your posting, RobertK, and it does implicitly deny that abortion causes breast cancer. I don't know why you deny that now. The clear theme of your posting is that abortion does not cause breast cancer, but can be immoral anyway. Abortion does increase the risk of breast cancer regardless of its immorality, and let's not pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::With all respect, Mr S, I think you misread my posting. PJR apparently read ''all'' the words. I set up a ''hypothetical'' situation in which the two things, abortion and breast cancer, are not linked. Hypothetical means, basically, let's pretend. I used a hypothetical to show that it can be dangerous to look for moral teachings in science, since morality is a permanent, unchanging quality of the Divine, whereas science is the imperfect human approach to understanding the natural world. To base moral decisions on science is a fool's errand. Abortion is either moral or immoral, and whether or not it is related to breast cancer is a matter of science, not of morality. If this issue is too complex as stated, I can try to make it simpler for you, but it is important...it goes to the heart of how to approach moral decision making.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 22:14, 14 February 2008 (EST)
:::::I think it was just a misunderstanding... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:27, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::: A few comments: First, rereading your (RobertK's) post, whilst I am not changing my comment that your general point is quite correct, the second-last sentence ("It seems silly ...") does appear as though it was written from the perspective that the scientific argument in this case is wrong. Personally, and because this is not explicit and not clear and may not be so, I don't believe that it's grounds for criticism, but perhaps that's what Andy was referring to. Regarding your latest post, whilst I don't ''really'' disagree with anything you said, I would qualify/clarify it by saying that if something is immoral, it will have consequences, so one should expect to be able to find those consequences, and science might be very useful for this. There is therefore nothing wrong with citing scientific evidence, even though, as you say, the scientific evidence should not be the ''basis'' of the moral argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

===Sources in the Abortion Article===

The sources got brought up earlier in this discussion, so I thought I'd quickly skim through them

* [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf JPands] states that giving birth decreases the risk of breast cancer, not that an abortion will actually increase it relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm The BCP Institute] states that abortion will increase the risk of breast cancer relative to carrying out the pregnancy, however does not state that abortion will increase the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm The Abortion Breast Cancer page] states that women who give birth will have a lower risk of breast cancer than those who abort, however does not state that abortion increases the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant.

My understanding from the reading of these is that although a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at a heightened risk of cancer compared to if they had gone ahead with the childbirth, a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will '''not''' be at any increased risk relative to a person who did not get pregnant in the first place. Therefore it is more correct to say that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than saying that it actually increase the risk of abortion.

Having said that, I haven't had time to review the sources not available on the internet, or properly read through all of the ones provided. That said, if they follow the general theme which permeates both the neutral and conservative views then the answer to CarolineMilton's original anecdote is that the person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at the same risk of breast cancer as the abstinent virgin who never got pregnant in the first place.

Feel free to refute me if my reading was in error. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 05:50, 14 February 2008 (EST)

: Your summary of a sample of the articles is a distortion. Abortion does increase a pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer and she should be told that. The increase in risk is not merely due to a lack of childbirth, but even if it were, that is still an increase in risk and the woman should still be told that. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I will neither agree nor disagree at this time, because I have not had sufficient time to properly read through the sources. Perhaps you could assist me by providing the specific section of a source which states that abortion increases the risk independently of child birth.

::That said I do believe that a medical patient should be given all available information, it forms the basis of consent in medicine. That said, the information needs to be delivered properly, if my original summary was correct then it would be wrong to say that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, rather it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings. I'll have a closer look through the sources when I get home, expect an answer then, although if you point to the specific section which states that abortion increases the risk without considering childbirth that would be a great help. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 17:01, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: TheGuy, you're still fighting the truth. A pregnant woman considering [[abortion]] makes a choice: increase her risk of breast cancer by having the abortion, or not. The doctor should tell her that the procedure increases her risk of having breast cancer. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::: TheGuy, here are a few sources asserting links between abortion and breast cancer independant of the cancer-risk reducing effect of childbirth.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf] [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf] There are others quoted in the [[abortion]] arcticle. Read them through and consider. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:20, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::I apologise, I don't have time at the moment to conduct extensive research on the topics. Although I will concede that the articles do mention that abortion can increase risk independent of childbirth, the overwhelming number of studies seem to show that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than being an independent risk factor, a view echoed in both the sources provided. Again, I cannot properly comment until I have adequately reviewed the studies.

:::::Andy, I have already stated that I believe that medical patients should be informed of all the risks surrounding their electives. However, care must be taken in order to ensure that this information is accurate. If it is shown that the risk of breast cancer is increased independent of childbirth then by all means the woman should be informed that abortion will elevate her chances of getting breast cancer. However, if a majority of studies show that abortion only increases risk relative to a person who carries out the childbirth then the woman should be informed that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides, a correct statement which does not unduly incite fear or distort the facts. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 18:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: TheGuy, you would have made a good apologist for the tobacco industry. It denied increasing the risk of lung cancer for decades. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Your attempt at obfuscation by restating that as "abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides" is as confusing as it is nonsensical. "Fails to provide the decrease" is a compound negative, and an example of [[liberal obfuscation]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)

No I would not make a good apologist for the tobacco industry, because smoking does increase the risk of lung cancer independently of any other factors. The issue at hand is whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer independently to the decease in risk offered by birth.

Assuming that my position is correct, then it would be wrongful to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Consider the following scenario:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

My understanding is that both of these would have the same risk of getting breast cancer, therefore it would be wrong to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Instead, if we add a third person:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

''Person C gets pregnant and gives birth''

In this case, person C would be at a lower risk of breast cancer to person A or B, therefore it is not that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, instead it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings.

If we do insist on stating that abortion leads to an increase in the risk of breast cancer then we might as well say abstinance does the same thing, as it prevents a person getting pregnant, which in turn prevents them from giving birth which in turn prevents them from getting a decrease in risk of breast cancer.

And yes I am aware of the studies that abortion independently leads to breast cancer, however I have not had time to research them properly, and do not like commenting on things I know nothing about. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 19:42, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::Nice effort, but there's not much point in trying to educate those who either are incapable or unwilling to understand statistics. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::Exactly what is the purpose of this Wiki? It seems that one conservative here has been out-argued by many, many more conservatives; therefore, if the purpose of this Wiki is to broadcast the generally conservative viewpoint, then the page should be duly edited. Otherwise, we might have to accuse the wiki manager of fascism, which is a liberal philosophy.

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

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

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

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

== 'Hollywood Values' ==

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

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

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

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

::(Sorry if that seemed like a bit of a non-sequitur, I actually posted that in the wrong article talk page) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Fall of communism in Europe ==
Shouldn't some credit also be given to [[Margaret Thatcher]]? Our article on her partially addresses this, but it is because of her that free market capitalism's successes were demonstrated to Europe. While Reagan may have helped end communism in Europe, Thatcher definitely made the alternative more appealing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia... ==
But this page reads more like a tabloid article than anything. "Top ten instances of liberal denial"? According to who, exactly? It's no wonder that this website is so widely regarded as a joke when you have pages like this one dedicated to ignorant generalisations about so called 'liberals'. Maybe if you dedicated more time toward writing articles on things like history, and less time making bigoted assumptions about everyone, people would start taking this website seriously. Unlikely, though.
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]]

:You thought way wrong, as you have obviously discovered. Here you shall learn that denial is the hallmark of every liberal. In fact, liberals often shockingly deny that they are liberals! However, they are easily detected by their frequent use of mockery and sighs. Speaking of which, I suspect you are a liberal. I would ask you to explain your positions on a number of issues, including gun control, censorship of school prayer, abortion, and intelligent design, but I am already 95% certain of those positions. Gladstone, indeed. [[User:AodhMor|AodhMor]] 12:37, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

== Justifying statement 3 ==

On line 3, it states that "the intellectual justification for Hitler's attempt to build a master Aryan race was the theory of evolution". I see no proof in this. Can someone please provide a source for such information?

: Did you look yourself? It took me less than one minute to find a source: [http://www.christiantreasury.com/Apologetics/Apologetic_Atheism.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Your source, Aschlafly, clearly has an agenda. Can you find a neutral source?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:11, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
: So the strength of their argument doesn't count, only your opinion that they have an agenda? I don't know what makes you think that they have an agenda, but I reckon by the same logic that ''you'' have an agenda in asking, so should we dismiss your question just as readily? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: Excellent point, Philip. AdenJ, ''everyone'' has an "agenda" and it is absurd to pretend otherwise. You're not fooling anyone, AdenJ, to the extent you may pretend not to have an agenda. This site exists in part because we reject the falsehoods of other sites (such as Wikipedia) that pretend to be neutral when, of course, they really aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:35, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

And I was so sure I had fooled you! Darn it!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 10:25, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

On the second list, item number 3: What belief? Just curious. And how is murder the logical conclusion of atheism? As far as I know, the atheist population has a lower crime rate and much lower murder rate than the rest of the population, in the US at least.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:14, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Evolution and Hitler ==

This article says Liberals deny that "the intellectual justification for Hitler's attempt to build a master Aryan race was the theory of evolution." That's actually inaccurate. Hitler applied the concept of "survival of the fittest," as proposed in ''The Descent of Man''. Survival of the fittest and evolution are different concepts. "Evolution" refers to the cumulative changes in a species over time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection. More details here: [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html]
:More evidence on that note: [http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ Kara Rogers's article], [http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/SocDarw.htm a few paragraphs from the College of DuPage]
Cheers, —[[User talk:Trustworthiness|Trustworthiness]]

Talk:Liberal denial

2009-08-14T20:43:49Z

Trustworthiness: /* Abortions and breast cancer */

National Center for Science Education

2009-08-14T19:03:00Z

Trustworthiness: Removing a rather stupid claim that could easily give conservativism a bad rep.

The '''National Center for Science Education''' (NCSE) is a not-for-profit organization that advocates teaching the [[theory of evolution]] in [[U.S.]] [[public school]]s, to the exclusion of [[scientific creationism]] and [[intelligent design]], which it contends is a form of [[creationism]].

The NCSE is responsible for "[[Project Steve]]", a parody of ''[[Logical fallacies#Proof by numbers|argument ad populum]]''. The following statement was released to show its purpose:
{{QuoteBox|NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
...
Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"}}
The effectiveness of this campaign, however, is dubious at best.

== External links ==
*[http://www.natcenscied.org/ National Center for Science Education]

[[category:Political Organizations]]

Cdesign proponentsists

2009-08-14T18:51:10Z

Trustworthiness:

The term "'''cdesign proponentsists'''" came into vogue use by evolutionists during and after the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial in [[Pennsylvania]] over the legitimacy of intelligent design as a science. The Dover (Pennsylvania) Area School District had intended a statement be read to ninth grade biology students directing them to a book called [[Of Pandas and People]], an [[intelligent design]] textbook for middle and high school children. During the trial, previous drafts of the book were subpoenaed for review. It was discovered that previous versions of the book had the words "creationist," "creationism" and other similar words and phrases in place of every use of the words "intelligent design" and similar words and phrases in later editions. In one notable case, it was shown that the word "creationists" had been partially replaced with "design proponents," strangely resulting in "cdesign proponentsists".

([[John E. Jones III]]'s verdict was that intelligent design was the same as creationism and that Dover School Board's attempt to allow it to be taught in schools violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.<ref>[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref>)

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

[[category:law]]