Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal denial"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Abortions and breast cancer: providing requested sources)
(Abortions and breast cancer)
Line 144: Line 144:
  
 
::: 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)
 
::: 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)
  
 
===Sources in the Abortion Article===
 
===Sources in the Abortion Article===

Revision as of 21:14, 14 February 2008

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. 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. Darkmind1970 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)
See? You help illustrate our point!--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. 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. 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.--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. 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. 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.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. Humblpi 09:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Wow, this entry really gets under the skin of liberals, 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?--Aschlafly 10:05, 13 February 2008 (EST)
OK - sorry - good point - will do! 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 DLerner

Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. 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. Barikada 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?

DLerner

The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. 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. --GDewey 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Your understanding is from liberal denials. 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.--Aschlafly 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)
See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? 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. --GDewey 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)
So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --GDewey 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Folks, go somewhere else to engage in liberal denials. 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 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). 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.--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). 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.--Aschlafly 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? 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? SSchultz 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of breast cancer, than conversely abstinence increases the risk of breast cancer. 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? 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.--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 aborting several babies or simply remaining 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. 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 liberals 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.--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. .--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? --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.--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? --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.--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. --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.--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? --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.--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? --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.--Aschlafly 19:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks, that's what I thought. --HMayo 19:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)
It is a good article and it cites a 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 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? 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.--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. 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. 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.--Aschlafly 23:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Doesn't 2+2=10? 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.RobertK 23:41, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Your general point is quite correct. 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.--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.RobertK 22:14, 14 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

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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. 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?--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. 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?--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.[1] [2] There are others quoted in the abortion arcticle. Read them through and consider. Feebasfactor 21:20, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Suggestion for Item 11

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

#9 Reversion?

So, I'm wondering why my 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.--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.--Aschlafly 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Fair enough...--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. 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).--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. 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. 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...? 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.--Aschlafly 18:25, 13 February 2008 (EST)