Changes
Hippocratic oath
==The Language==We should remove the references to it being "murder." I would have done it myself but the article is locked. Murder is a legal term referring to unlawful killing not just killing. Abortion is legal in the United States (this is an american-Your definition based wikia so what other countries say of abortion is misleading and downright falseof no consequence) It would not be inconsistent to do so since Mr.Ashlafly has proposed in his re-translation of The Bible to change the commonly accepted translation "thou shall not kill" to "thou shall not murder" thus establishing a precedent for such a change. Murder can be of course be used within persuasive essays to refer to legal honor killings in the middle east of course, but this is an encyclopedia, not a persuasive essay. It's not about watering it down, it's about making this place more encyclopedia-like. For the record, I'm anti-abortion (I refuse the pro-life label) albeit for secular not religious reasons.--DavidS 13:18, 19 September 2013 (EDT)
The last sentence in the first paragraph on Abortion and Breast Cancer reads "Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades." which is evidenced by an article on the tobacco industry and its denials rather than anything related to abortion - not very poignant. Removed it, but apparently this should be there? Don't think that kind of boot-strapping sets a good example for the home-school kids.Added a list of the liberal organizations who deny the link between breast cancer and abortion - saying "many organizations aligned with liberal politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection." at the end of the abortion section is vacuous - people should know who these people are denying such strong evidence. Added a list of organizations and citations to their denials but apparently these details aren't appropriate? Don't think [[George Washington]] would have removed demonstrable facts when we could "seek the truth and pursue it steadily"Respectfully suggest reverting to previous version rather than censoring demonstrably valid edits--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 01:39, 26 September 2011 (EDT) == Pro-Abortion Distortion ... Rebutted ==I wanted to know the process of abortion, not the pro-life opinion on abortion. I am pro-life, but this page does not describe the actual abortion itself. As provided by the national cancer institute (the real one, not the name-hijacking national cancer institution of abortion) there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage]</ref> The positive cancer preventing attributes of birth are distinct from the causality of cancer by abortion. The studies indicate that women who have abortions and women who do not give birth are at equal risk of breast cancer. : Your comment is misleading. Read the entry with an open mind. The evidence is overwhelming that abortion increases the pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer. : There's over a billion dollars and other incentives to deceive the public into accepting abortion. Don't be taken in by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT) "About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child decide not to abort." Why is this sentence in bold? It might be an important piece of evidence, but the statistics are not 100% perfect, nor is there an obvious conclusion to draw from it. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:38, 26 July 2009 (EDT) Also, why is there a picture of an ultrasound which supposedly pictures Jesus? What does that have to do with abortion? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:43, 26 July 2009 (EDT): From my perspective, it looks like Jesus on the cross. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 03:50, 26 July 2009 (EDT) == Rename Article? ==I came to this article to read about what Abortion is, but instead I got completely overwhelmed by how bad it is. I actually had to go to Wikipedia to see what Abortion is, and how it is done. Then comming back here, I finally understood why ''such'' a large part of this article is devoted to why abortion is bad. Either there needs to be a section in this article that describes what abortion is, how it is done, etc... OR this article needs to be renamed to "Problems with Abortion" or something like that. ==Typo(s)===<blockquote>At the continued rate, racism by abortion will kill decimate the black populace of the U.S.</blockquote> [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 18:28, 14 July 2009 (EDT) To illustrate my point, let me make an analogy with a hypothetical article called "Drugs." Conservapedia's article is like the following:'''Drugs'''''Drugs are bad. Stay away.'' Wikipedia's article is the following:'''Drugs'''''Drugs are a class of chemicals that affect the central nervous system. They are used for recreation... (informative stuff... more informative stuff, followed by liberal junk, liberal junk).'' Somebody who doesn't know what Drugs are going to find Wikipedia's article far more useful than conservapedia's, even though Drugs are bad. Can somebody please make ''this'' article more informative by mimicing Wikipedia but by also taking out the liberal junk, ''please''? --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 21:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT) :Did you search the term "Drugs"? And if they are not up to your standards, what can you do to improve them? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 21:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT) ::Wait, you misunderstood me; I used "drugs" as an example to illustrate my point. There needs to be a section in this article ''about what abortion is'', and ''how it is done'' and ''why it is done''. Everything else in the article is fine. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 22:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT) == Your definition is misleading and downright false. ==''' I would just like to point out the the term abortion is used in the medical community to describe the termination of a pregnancy both voluntarily and involuntarily (otherwise known as a miscarriage)-- This came to my attention when I read a story about a woman who experienced severe degradation at a gynecologist's appointment for noting on her medical intake form that she had several abortions. In her case she was referring to a series of miscarriages. I don't think any person should be made to feel that horrible under any circumstance, but the fact that it was a complete misunderstanding based on existing personal beliefs and unwillingness on behalf of the doctor to even investigate before making her remarks makes it even more upsetting. If a doctor doesn't know something like this, how can the public be expected to when you perpetuate the wrong idea? This isn't a bias, its a fact. Words are very powerful and its wrong to tell readers only what you want them to think or know and leave out the rest. It's disrespectful. I agree wholeheartedly with this assertion. I think it is necessary to include a mention early on in the article to how the medical definition of abortion varies from the popular definition. [[User:ConcernedScientist|ConcernedScientist]] 10:08, 5 November 2008 (EST) '''Reply:''' Yes, hello, I would just like to state that even if you're claiming to be a super conservative website, you should still report the facts and not just your opinions. For example, it is complete opinion that abortions qualify as murders -- it is the choice of the mother who has the fetus within her, not yours. Also, calling yourselves pro-life is counter-intuitive since birthing a child who the mother will not want or be able to care for will actually be decreasing the value of life for the child born. But whatever. Regardless, I think you should include reasons for both sides of the debate rather than being biased and not even bothering to listen to the other side of the aisle. This is only worsening the partisan divide in America and lowering how well-versed people are on these issues, such as abortion. Read up on the issues with an open mind, not a closed one, and you can come to whatever conclusion you want to, but at least take into consideration that women who chose to have abortions don't do it on a whim. They do it because they know they can't provide an equal opportunity for their child, especially if the child is a product of a rape or unwanted sexual interaction. {{protectunsigned|AschlaflyHi22}}:Your comment is utterly ridiculous -- abortion being murder is an objective fact, grounded upon the strong scientific evidence that unborn human beings are, in fact, humans ([https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/ 1],[https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html 2],[https://www.mccl.org/single-post/2017/12/20/The-unborn-is-a-human-being-What-science-tells-us-about-unborn-children 3],[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/ 4],[https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/when-does-life-begin/ 5] etc.) That's not opinion, it's fact. When one takes the life of a human, that's murder. Liberals deny the fact that abortion takes human life and is thus a form of murder. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:14, 30 October 2018 (EDT)
==Maintain the neutrality of the article==
: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]]<sup>[[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]]</sub> 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Ardent liberals don't think anything should be a litmus test for conservatism or for Christianity for that matter. Liberals, are not exactly champions for restraint of any kind. Obama's massive spending is a fine example of this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:29, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]
Northern Ireland: Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland (not as the article states 'legal but rare'). In common with other countries where abortion is illegal, allowances have been made where carrying the child to term would put the mother at too great a risk, and therefore an abortion may be performed. Women from Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, often find themselves in a situation where they 'get on the boat' and travel to England for an abortion instead.
:That's largely true. There are exceptions where abortions can be performed in Northern Ireland, basically for health reasons [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1386450.stm]. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:: "Health" exceptions are notoriously broad in some countries, and can even include "financial health." It is in the interests of the abortion industry to exaggerate its complaints about limitations on abortion in its desire to expand its business.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
== Article weight ==
Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: The harm caused by the operation is most important and should receive greater weight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:45, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
==Bible==
*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article
* Support. I am also a Christian, and while I might agree with some of the views expressed in this article I recognise my opinions as one side of an argument. When an article is as biased as this is present it detracts from the factual nature. I propose this article is restructured to include more factual material, and what exists at present condensed into a section titled "moral issues with abortion".
==Proposed new section==
::::Also, there is no mention of criticism of studies which indicate an ABC link, such as response bias and small data sets. There is plenty of criticism of these studies but has not been mentioned here. The section also repeatedly makes use of the word "expert", yet cites no expert who concludes there is marginal or no ABC link; I'm sure they exist. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
If a woman's chance of getting breast cancer is x, then what you're implying with articles like these headlines is that an abortion raises that chance to "x plus something", when the reality is that it stays the same - only if she gives birth does the probability go to "x minus something".
This is not the way a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should written. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:35, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
By the same logic you have used in this article about breast cancer; abstinence is as bad as an abortion. Both increase (to the same amount) the risk of breast cancer, as you are not having a baby (which you state decreases the risk of breast cancer). So the very thing you are suggesting people to do (abstinence), is something that increases breast cancer (your argument, as they wont have a baby) which is the reason you are telling people not to have an abortion. Surely, surely a contradiction here. Unless we can find a solution to the contradiction, this section on breast cancer needs to be removed.
: No, your logic is fallacious. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer more than not having children. Also, abstinence reduces the transfer of sexually transmitted diseases, and abstinence (outside of marriage) reduces the risk of health problems, including breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:: [http://www.obgyn.net/displayarticle.asp?page=/english/pubs/articles/nuns] references a study that puts nuns at a greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/bcancer1.html] is another that refrences a study for nuns at greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.popline.org/docs/0078/690575.html] is a study itself that reads "Nuns displayed a striking excess in breast cancer mortality over the age span of 40-74 years and had consistently higher rates than controls for each age group above 39 years." Do you have any links to a study that shows a decreased risk for breast cancer for nuns (who I assume practice abstinence). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:57, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Nuns predictably would have an elevated risk of breast cancer. One who has an [[abortion]] is incurring that risk '''plus''' an increased risk arising from the interruption of a pregnancy. Note that pro-[[abortion]] advocates deny any increased risk of breast cancer from an [[abortion]], which makes no sense in light of what you just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
== Historical view of abortion ==
I just noticed the same thing that [[User:Myk|Myk]] mentioned above but no one seems to have addressed it. If the sentence is going to make the billion-dollar-industry claim, then shouldn't the sources, you know, back that statement up somehow instead of being remotely and tangentially related?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
: Multiple the number of abortions worldwide by the charges for those abortions. It's way over a billion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:44, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
== Scientific/Medical background needed ==
Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
==Bizarre fixation on abortion==
I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
What about the abortion of a foetus that has been exposed to depleted uranium? Like the ones being born to mothers in Iraq? Should they be allowed to get an abortion rather than having a baby that will live its short life in pain and suffering? - http://www.aztlan.net/du_deformed_iraqi_babies.htm
== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==
Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==
This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.
Despite the use of forced abortion being outlawed by the central government, the practice has persisted in some areas, most notably, [[Linyi]], [[Shandong]] Province, where it was exposed to [[''Time'']] magazine by blind [[activist]] [[Chen Guangcheng]] in 2005. As a result of his expose of Linyi officials, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months prison for "intentionally damaging property" and "organising a crowd to disturb traffic" after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.
[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
==Hypocrisy==
How can conservapedia devote an entire article to bias in wikipedia, and then vomit out a bias-ridden article like this mess? It's the same with other articles on atheism, homosexuality, Islam and other anti-Conservative topics. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral - this isn't neutral it is republican party propaganda. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 16:12, 3 January 2008 (EST)
: No, this isn't republican party propaganda; the GOP isn't this extremist! Seriously, this is more of an essay or blog than an encyclopedia article. [[User:Gootbean|Gootbean]] 16:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: One comment above uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "hypocrisy"; the other uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "extremist"! Check out [[liberal style]] and see yourselves in the mirror.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::I kind of wonder about their use of the word "extremists" on us. We're not the ones killing children here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: Right. Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream! Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of [[liberals]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::::I do have to say that this article has issues. It is currently a piece of propaganda, not a good encyclopedia article. This all should be mentioned, sure (the idea of Conservapedia is to avoid the censorship so common to such causes), but if we want to create an encyclopdia people can come to an read (not read a political treatise), we should fix this up. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I find it odd that you just have come to Conservapedia, and seconds later you begin lecturing sysops about the ideals of Conservapedia. I would tread lightly, because your motivations seem questionable at best. If you are here to edit fine, but if you are here, as I suspect, to stir up trouble, then please feel free to leave. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 19:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:::"Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream!" -- Well, isn't it? The words have nothing to do with right and wrong, it's a term about popularity. Support for abortion is mainstream, as google defines it: ''The prevailing current of thought influence or activity supported by dominant cultures and institutions.'' [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 13:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: No, it's not mainstream, except by those who benefit from the [[abortion industry]] or are fooled by it. President [[George W. Bush]] was elected and re-elected by opposing [[abortion]], as does [[John McCain]].
==Picture==
Is the picture of the unborn fetus really an integral part of this article? Because I can see it being used as ammo by PETA loons bent on trying to stick cute pictures of cows into the [[hamburger]] and [[beef]] articles. "Give a man an inch..." -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 14:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)
: That's your sole contribution to this encyclopedia. How about doing yourself a favor, and [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|opening your mind]] a bit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::I made a suggestion about how to close a potential loophole, which people here are free to either take up or pass over, but I would appreciate it if others would consider things on merit, and not resort to roundabout, ad hominem jabs. -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 18:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)
== Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]] ==
Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]]; I cannot do it because [[Abortion]] is locked. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:Also, let's just unlock this article. What fun is it if I cannot edit [[abortion]], [[evolution]], and [[gun control]]? <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">S</font><small>tephen</small><font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">W</font><sup>[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]]</sup> 23:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::Are you serious? Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::Which says a lot about public opinion regarding Conservapedia - they're not stupid enough to take this page seriously. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 14:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Do you equate the acts of a few vandals with public opinion..? --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::::"'''Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.'''" Think about the contributions conservapedia looses with these draconian measures (such as mine due to night time restrictions). <font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">S</font><small>tephen</small><font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;">W</font><sup>[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]]</sup> 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: Stephen: "loses" is with only one "o". Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Stephen it's not as though a bunch of sysops just decided one day, "Eh, it would be really awesome if we just pissed people off by not letting them edit certain articles or at certain times!" Certain articles get lots of vandalism - which is why they are locked - all wikis do this. I'm not even going to respond to your reference to night editing as this page is not the place to vent your general frustration)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)
==Hippocrates' Oath==
I suggest a reference to the oath in the second sentence of the article; not because it's at all contested, but simply in order to demonstrate clearly how it is "expressly prohibited". I would suggest the following:
<nowiki><ref>"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."</ref></nowiki>
I would add it myself instead of pestering here, but... the article is unfortunately still locked... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The Hippocratic Oath forbids any kind of surgery in general, I feel that its use to decry abortion as a medically unacceptable procedure is outdated and inappropriate here.
[[User:Yatesan|Yatesan]] 9:57, 27 June 2008 (EST)
==Image==
The image presented at the beginning of the article is of a healthy fetus nearing 40 weeks (very close to birth) and is not a probable subject or candidate for abortion. [[User:Acronym|Acronym]]
:The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)
== Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States ==
Since the article is locked, I cannot make this change. (Not complaining about the block, as its need is obvious.) There are 2 or 3 extraneous spaces between the [3] footnote and the following period. On my browser, this happens to hit right at the beginning of a line and looks very odd. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
==Abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child==
This is factually incorrect. The baby's heart begins to beat between 18-21 days after conception. Although it is unusual, it is possible, and does happen- particularly in cases of the so called "plan B" pill being used- that abortion occurs prior to the first heartbeat.
== Extreme Bias in Article! Specific quote found to support this ==
"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki. {{unsigned|Astinzo}} 20:59, 4 March 2008
:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)
== Picture? ==
I'm not sure if the picture of the human fetus in utero included in this article could be considered family-friendly, considering its graphic and jarring nature and given that one of the Conservapedia Commandments is that articles must be family-friendly and unoffensive. {{unsigned|Pianycist}} 13:27, 10 April 2008
: Do you find a picture of an unborn child "graphic and jarring"? We don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
== Abortion and Suicide ==
Interested parties are encouraged to help develop the stub [[abortion and suicide]]. I've provided a good bit of documentation to reliable sources to get started. I also plan to do the same regarding a large number of studies showing a strong link between abortion and substance abuse. I have a ton of resources to contribute but not a lot of time for editing and fashioning them into a good, readable article. I would appreciate the help of additional editors.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 13:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
==Why is the article locked?==
I want to insert some information into the article about how supporters of abortion never deny that it is murder and instead just give meaningless statements such as "women should have the right to choose".--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 17:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
Your see also list has [[Abortion Facts]] on there twice. Might be wise to remove one. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 14:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
== Fetus wrong ==
The human fetus is inaccurate. abortions are ALMOST NEVER done anywhere near this point. Always stops the "beating heart" is also inaccurate because the heart has not developed. Use of this image is an example of bleeding-heart pandering.
: Please try again in a more coherent manner. Are you referring to the picture? Many, many [[abortions]] are done at that stage, and later. And doing an [[abortion]] earlier is a matter of degree, not a difference in kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
== Pictures Generated ==
Is the first picture computer generated? It looks so realistic that its unrealistic.
: No, it's implausible to think a computer generated that photo. Many similar, actual photos are widely available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
== Ultimate Goal is Reducing Abortion, yes? ==
I think that this page should have a very stong message of how to reduce the number of abortions. I think that everyone, including the most rabid pro-lifers would have to agree that in an ideal society abortion would not exist. A quick investigation into which countries have extremely low abortion rates would be a starting point for what works. For example, Sweden, often quoted as the ideal liberal society with freely available sexual education and contraception for youth has an unacceptably high abortion rate. About the same as the U.S. But Holland and Belgium, both very secular societies with similar attitudes towards sexual education and contraception have abortion rates about half of the U.S. It appears that outlawing abortion has a dramatic effect on the number of abortions performed but there are also countries like Austria with liberal abortion laws that have extremely low abortion rates.
'''This wall chart shows worldwide abortion statistics and would be useful for anyone researching abortion, as I hope that many people use this site for.'''
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_Abortion_Policies_Chart/2007_WallChart.pdf
It is interesting to see how Canada's abortion rate is 25% less than the U.S. rate. They are relatively similar societies, with Canada being viewed as being more liberal, with more liberal abortion laws.
As well, to present both sides of the story, it should be noted that some researchers contend that outlawing abortion just pushes it underground. In a surprisingly balanced article for the liberal press, here is an article that presents both sides of the story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
Aside from working to outlaw abortion, I think that truly Christian, Conservative activists should research what programs are effective in reducing abortion rates. Abstinence seems not to work, and if contraception is the answer, I think that the small sin of premarital sex with protection far outweighs the big sin of murdering a child.
What do the site adminsitrators and readers think? Is this part of a balanced discussion of abortion.
Jeremyh
: I found the UN table to be liberal claptrap, spreading more misinformation than anything else. The table does confirm that Poland and Ireland, where abortion is illegal, have almost no abortions. Well, no kidding. As to other countries, the table does not differentiate between the various types of abortion regulations that have a big effect on numbers of abortion, such as informed consent, parental consent, bans on abortions after a certain number of weeks, etc. Are Austria's abortion laws really as liberal as the table claims? I doubt they are nearly as liberal as the United States. Also, note that demographics are vastly different between countries like the United States and Canada, and abortion rates vary widely based on demographics with all else the same.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I agree that the UN is probably not the best source for non-liberal information. I have found a better site that breaks down the laws somewhat better, but still is missing the consent aspect. (It appears to be a pro-life site)
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm
As well it would be foolish and naive to assume that there are no abortions performed in Poland or Ireland. The figures that any goverment agency will give you are offical statistics. Any investigation into the exact number of illegal abortions performed in these countries are bound to be tainted with researcher prejudice. I don't know these figures, and I doubt that anyone really knows with any accuracy. Some liberal researchers put the figures questionably high in order to support their cause of keeping abortion legal. The fact is that abortion laws do not affect these illegal abortions.
I don't want to harp on Austria, but it just seemed so weird that I did a little research. Apparently they have extremely liberal abortion laws and even have legalized the 'abortion pill'. What the heck is going on there? Should we ignore countries like Austria and Belgium? Or should we see if they are doing something right to stop the indiscriminate murder of babies?
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oso/2970/2001/00000001/00000001/art00002
I do not claim to know the answer, but it seems that a wider approach is needed to stop abortion in conjunction to working towards banning it. It may sound facetious, but we have had a 100% strictly enforced ban on murder (of adults)in this country for over 200 years and it has not stopped people from murdering each other. Of course we should ban abortion, but what else is in our arsenal to stop this evil? And what the heck are we doing wrong in the U.S. that our abortion rates higher than most Western European nations, and are only outstripped by former Communist countries where the culture was to use abortion as birth control?
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html
== Morality of Abortion ==
It seems so far that the morality of abortion hinges on the question of whether or not it involves termination of human life. Let me then pose this question:<br /> In medical research laboratories, colonies of human cells of various types are often grown in petri dishes in order to study medications and diseases at a cellular level. These cells metabolize (they are in fact alive) and are, genetically speaking, definitely human. If abortion is morally wrong because it involves the termination of human life, is the fixing and staining of human cell cultures morally wrong?
[[User:Cwb|Cwb]]
: Cells are not necessarily human lives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
:: The question then becomes what is human life, and what is not? You state that cells are not always human life. But a human embryo is little more than a bundle of cells. What exactly makes an embryo a human life and human cell cultures not human life? [[User:Cwb|Cwb]] 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
::: A random bunch of cells can't become a human, but a embryo can. That's the difference. [[User:Patriot1505]]
:::: Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.
''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 611: “Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, '''from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle'''.”
''Encyclopedia Britannica'' 1998, v 26, p 664: ”'''A new individual''' is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”
''The Gale Encyclopedia of Science'' 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, '''the developing human being''' is called an embryo.”
''The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science'' 1994, p 340: ” – in biology, the sequence of developmental stages through which members of a given species pass. Most vertebrates have a simple '''life cycle''' consisting of '''fertilization''' of sex cells or gametes, a period of development as an embryo, a period of juvenile growth after hatching or birth, and adulthood including sexual reproduction, and finally death.”
''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1290: ”Embryo. '''The developing individual''' between the time of the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. [...] At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), '''a new life has begun'''.”
''Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia'' 2002, v 1, p 1291: ”The period of pregnancy begins with the union of the sperm and egg. At the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception), '''a new life begins'''.”
''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 121: ”'''The new individual is established at the time of fertilization''', and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.”
''Collier’s Encyclopedia'' 1987, v 9, p 117: ”The fused sperm and egg, called zygote, '''is a new individual with full capacities for development in a normal environment'''.”
Human embryologist say:
Keith L. Moore: ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.)
William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.)
Bradley M. Patten: ”Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual“. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.) Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.” (1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.)
Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.: ”'''Human development''' is a '''continuous process''' that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is '''fertilized''' by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.” (1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.)
Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller.: ”is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a genetically is thereby formed.” (1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.)
Another quote from Scott Gilbert in his book ''Developmental Biology'':
”Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. '''But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm.''' It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. [...] The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes-the sperm and the egg.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.chapter.176)
Besides, as we all consist of different tissues, every human being is just a "blob of tissues". But at the moment of conception, these tissues belong to certain human individual and are not just some kind of abstract organic matter that some day may become a human individual.
--[[User:JohanSB|JohanSB]] 09:13, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
== The Bible and Abortion ==
I am surprised to see that there is no mention of the Bible's explicit condemnation of abortion in this article. I will write up a section on this if a sysop is willing to unlock it later. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 18:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:I believe the relationship between the Bible and abortion is a complicated topic worthy of discussion; I have heard Christian pro-choice advocates quote Exodus 21:22-25, wherein God apparently deems men who kill an unborn child to be not guilty of murder. I, too, would be willing to contribute if a sysop unlocks the article, and will do my best to treat this subject with fairness. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 18:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:: Just start a new entry, like the [[Abortion and the Bible]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I did just that, thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 01:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)
== One-sided graphic display ==
The image at the top of the article is not representative of most aborted fetuses; it almost looks like a baby for crying out loud. An image like Fetus1.jpg would be more appropriate.
== What about women. ==
This Article says nothing about a woman's right to choose what she does with her own own body.
[[User:Hwuya|Hwuya]] 18:11, 24 November 2008 (EDT)
: one could argue that she makes a choice when she elects to become pregnant. I concede that special situation for rape may apply. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)
== Abortion is murder ==
I was stunned to see that the word "murder" does not appear anywhere in the article. Is Conservapedia trying to placate liberals, or pander to liberal viewpoints? This is a simple matter of clear and logical thinking: murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Unborn children are innocent people: therefore, abortion is murder.
I am new here, and I humbly apologize if I am out of my depth, but I feel very strongly about this. I do not believe we should shy away from boldly stating the truth, even if the liberal media does. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)
: Interesting comment, but pro-life leader [[Henry Hyde]] didn't use the word "murder" either. That term entails a legal or moral judgment and this entry has more of a scientific nature, like the rest of this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:: Thank you for your reply. It's your decision, of course. I just believe it is the duty of Christians to judge immorality, where the Bible or even common sense dictates. We don't pretend that [[gay rights]] or [[liberal values]] are morally sound on those pages, and evading the issue here leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.
:: I am happy to trust your judgment on this issue, though. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:55, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:::I applaud both your sentiment and your decision. After all, it is discipline as well as truthfulness that distinguishes us from WP. [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 09:04, 5 January 2009 (EST)
== Abortion is a million dollar industry ==
I would like to point out that abortion is not something done purely for profit, nor do those who run clinics do it for the purposes of earning a lot of money. I think this part of the article os erroneous.
: Wow, you've really been taken in by the abortion propaganda. Check how much the leading advocates of abortion make in one year. You'd be lucky to make the same amount in ten years of hard work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 28 January 2009 (EST)
== The fetus in the picture... ==
Does anyone have any idea how old s/he is? I think it would benefit to say "A human fetus at ___ weeks old." [[User:Shatoyaah|Shatoyaah]] 18:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:I would say approximately 4-5 months, but I'm not entirely sure.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 18:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::It is approximately 3-4 months old.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 20:44, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
== How about high quality video? ==
How about links to high-quality video also, rather than merely ultrasounds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:16, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:Sure. Next time I get a chance. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:39, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
== Planned parenthood's racism ==
Should we include the incident where palnned parenthood called wanting less black people in the world "understandable"? And wasn't their founder also a racist?
:That information is in the [[Planned Parenthood]] article, actually. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:52, 5 May 2009 (EDT)
== Picture of the Smellie Forcep ==
Maybe it should be mentioned that it's not solely an "abortion tool" - it is used in regular childbirth as well. Rebranding it as an "abortion tool" is like naming a gun an "armed robbery tool". [[User:ATang|ATang]] 16:18, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
:The caption does not say or imply that it is solely an abortion tool. Also, while guns are overwhelmingly defensive in purpose, by a ratio of more than 100:1, I don't think the same can be said about the Smellie Forcep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:22, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
== unlock? ==
Can someone unlock or edit in for me under See Also this - [[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]? Thank you[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 20:13, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
:Done as requested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
== Russia ==
In Russia abortion is allowed at any point during pregnancy. This is litteraly at ANY point until the umbilical cord is cutted. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia#Current_law</ref>
== Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war! ==
Starting this week, [[User:Conservative|Admin Conservative]] will be spreading awareness of Conservapedia's abortion material. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZm037jPNgc Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war!] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:01, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
:Admin:Conservative, trying to delete this section only drew my attention to it. So, what's about the dogs? Did you let them out? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
==Definition of Abortion==
This article begins with a false statement: "Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy, often causing fetal pain."
:Actually ,a medically accurate definition is "an abortion is the untimely expulsion or removal of the unborn baby and associated tissue from the uterus." To be sure abortion is commonly as the article defines it. But many abortions are spontaneous; probably most married women have them.
:::IMO focusing on "abortion," leads to distortion of the moral reality, which is baby-murder.
Suggested revision:
::"Medically speaking, an abortion is the untimely expulsion or removal of an unborn baby and associated tissue from his mother's uterus.<ref>medical dictionary citations go here</ref>. However, in common usage, the term abortion is used to denote the induced killing of the unborn baby, often causing pain to the unborn baby. (See article on Baby Murder.) ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 16:02, 17 June 2010 (EDT))
==References==
{{reflist}}
==Change Title of Article to Baby-Murder==
Suggestion: Reduce the "Abortion" article to a sentence or two and put a link: "See Baby-Murder." "Baby-Murder" should be the title for most of this topic. Talking about "abortion" obscures the issue. ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 18:20, 17 June 2010 (EDT))
:Technically speaking you are correct, but that's why no one wants technocrats running anything. ;-)
:99% of the public isn't going to search for Baby Murder, even if pro-life. They will search abortion, and that is why the article is called Abortion. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 18:42, 17 June 2010 (EDT)
== Reorganization ==
Can I reorganize the article, shifting some of it to specific sub-topic pages to make the main page less bulky?[[User:CDunigan|CDunigan]] 20:34, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
:I don't see a problem in doing that. You can also transclude parts onto a template and load it back onto the page that way, thus relieving some of the bulk as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
I have concerns about the changes already made, which give priority to a speculative poll while downgrading the fact that nearly 80% of women who see the ultrasound of their unborn child decide against abortion.
Like newspaper articles and good websites, ''Conservapedia'' entries prioritize the presentation of information based on significance. In this example, the fact about ultrasounds should carry more weight and receive higher priority than Guttmacher's speculative poll.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
:I made the edits reflecting the higher priority that should be given to facts (the percentage of women decide against abortion due to ultrasounds) relative to speculative polling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
::And I put it back. How the heck can we fight abortion if we don't even address why the women are sitting in the abortion clinic in the first place?
How much more significant can something be than WHY PEOPLE DO IT?
I've been a professional research writer on abortion. And I don't appreciate having extensively researched and relevant information simply yanked out because somebody else wants ONE SENTENCE to say everything that he thinks needs to be said on the topic.[[User:CDunigan|CDunigan]] 21:59, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
: I'm happy to discuss Guttmacher's polling approach and learn more about it. But in general polling data are often unreliable and are easily skewed. Polling data are not facts, like the ultrasound data are. An analogy would be to give polling data priority over actual election results.
: Did the Guttmacher poll provide the "reasons" to the women being surveyed, and ask them to choose between Guttmacher's options?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
:: The poll failed to mention the issue of seeing an ultrasound. The real reason that nearly 80% of women have abortions is simply this: they never saw an ultrasound of the unborn child. If a poll doesn't ask the right question, then it isn't going to get the correct answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
As a new user, I don't feel inclined to edit this article, but it feels very heavy on the front, with the table of content coming after a significant portion of the article. The issue is very crucial and atrocious, but our presentation should be more encyclopedic, with a short introduction, then a table of content, with so many sections before the content, it seems to violate the style guides I've been reading. You have to scroll to the contents, unless you've got an enormous monitor.--[[UserJohannesW|JohannesW]] 23:45, 22 September 2011 (EDT).
== Disappearance of [[abortion]] in [[Poland]] ==
Why I wrote that the reason abortion fell in Poland after the fall of the Soviet Union is due to abortion being illegal: Abortion is illegal in Poland. That is a fact, not an opinion. For reference, here are some links explaining this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4691192.stm, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12222281. I'm a conservative myself, and oppose abortion, but I do not think that it is fair that the purported reason for abortion dropping so drastically after the Soviet Union fell is because abortion is a communist undertaking, as is suggested.
: Abortion is highly correlated with communism, and communist attitudes. Abortion in the communist Soviet Union occurred at a rate many times that of the West, I think. So I'm not prepared to deny the connection. Conversely, abortion occurs at higher rates than in Poland in other nations where it is illegal, such as South America.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)
: A close reading of both of your links tends to reinforce my point. The first link (the BBC) notes that the Polish people associate the practice of abortion with the disliked and discredited communist Soviet Union. The second link (the NIH article) notes that the cost of abortion in Poland is a big factor. Government subsidies of abortion may matter more than the law, and presumably the communist government subsidized abortion heavily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:22, 30 December 2010 (EST)
A major reason that abortion occurred at a higher rate is because there were much more people in the Soviet Union than in any Western country. I do not see how you can not see the connection between abortion becoming illegal and a sharp drop in its rate. I am entirely sure that abortion would not have dropped 99% had it not been declared illegal. Also, regarding Polish people associating the practice of abortion with the Soviet Union: of course they are going to associate it with the Soviet Union. Under the Soviet Union, abortion was legal, now it is not. After the American Revolution, people associated monarchy with England, because England was a monarchy, and they were then under a so-called republic. Also, the Soviet Union did not subsidize abortion. In fact, they subsidized families who had children, so there was an incentive to have a child, not destroy one.
: The connection between communism and high abortion rates can hardly be denied, historically, logically, and spiritually. The average married woman in the communist Soviet Union had numerous abortions. Communism legalized abortion in 1920, and presumably it was long subsidized there as phony "health care." Logically, treating everyone the same under communism means many abortions so that women can work just like men.
: Pro-abortion groups pretend that women in Poland want to have abortion but cannot because it is illegal. The truth is that the people of Poland genuinely do not want to have abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 30 December 2010 (EST)
The average Russian woman did not have multiple abortions. In 1964, the year when there the most abortions in Soviet history, there were 5.6 million abortions. I could not find statistics depicting the number of women in Russia during 1964, but this year, there are about 66 million Russian women above the age of 15. I find it extremely hard to believe that the amount of women in Russia multiplied by 23.6 in 46 years. Also, with all due respect, how can you know that Polish women do not want to have abortions?
: 66 million Russian woman over age 15 means only about 10 million or so between ages 17 and 27, when women are most likely to become pregnant. At 5.6 million abortions a year, that means 30% or so of women in that age group were having an abortion ''each year''. That's many abortions per average woman by the time she is 30.
: You've fallen for the liberal misinformation, and have much to learn. We all do. I urge you to open your mind and learn and contribute here. The statement that Polish women no longer have abortions because they are not allowed to is a biased conclusion from the data. There are many other, equally plausible explanations, such as (a) they don't want to have abortions and/or (b) abortions are no longer subsidized by government. Do you think the main reason that people don't swim in a ice cold, dirty lake in a public park is because it is illegal?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 30 December 2010 (EST)
== Abortion and breast cancer ==
Don't the World Health Organization, American Cancer Society, and Royal Cancer society all reject a link between breast cancer and abortion? [[User:EnochCrosby|EnochCrosby]] 21:20, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:There's no point arguing this anymore. This horse has been beaten to death, resuscitated, beaten back to death, and given a final good beating before being sent off to create glue. Improve Conservapedia in other ways, and maybe once you've proven yourself to the establishment you can bring this point up again.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:40, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::I have to prove myself in order to point out that some the leading researchers in the fields of cancer and human anatomy have tested data and drawn conclusions contrary to the one mentioned in the article? I don't know the arguments presented, it just seemed rather strange that the organizations created solely to look for links like this are apparently all lying for some unknown reason. [[User:EnochCrosby|EnochCrosby]] 01:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)
== Abortions and Gays ==
If the fetus you save is gay, would you still fight for it's rights, if you fought for it's right to live and make it's own choice regarding it's life?
== Abortions and Gays ==
If the fetus you save is gay, would you still fight for it's rights, if you fought for it's right to live and make it's own choice regarding it's life?
== Deletions ==
I just added some sections on History and Public Polling. I'm deleting the following sections:{{cquote|
== Atheists and abortion ==
The [[Barna Group]] found concering [[Atheism and Morality|atheism and morality]] that those who hold to the worldviews of [[atheism]] or [[agnosticism]] in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard</ref>
==American Liberals and Abortion==
According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-abortion views. <ref>http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues</ref>
==Evolutionary Thought and Abortion==
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Liberals are more likely to advocate the evolutionary paradigm than conservatives]]. [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of aborting babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.<ref>http://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls</ref><ref>http://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia</ref>}}
I hope nobody really minds the removal of these, but they really don't contribute to the page from what I can tell. Doesn't it kind of go without saying that Atheists, Liberals, and Evolutionists are more likely to support abortion? You'd think everybody would pretty much know this. Having a bunch of little sections on these, frankly pretty obvious points, just makes the page look messier and more disorganized than it should. A section that I think would be much more useful and might end up writing, on the other hand, would be confronting common Abortion talking points about "choice", "right to one's body", and "privacy". But all these sections really do is distract rather than saying anything particularly useful. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 00:51, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
I also just deleted this section:
{{cquote|
== Scientists on abortion ==
Professor Vladimir Krčméry, Rector of the University of St.Elizabeth and the holder of two honorary doctorates made following public claim regarding abostion:
{{cquote|I consider abortion for being a deliberate killing of an unborn child who cannot defend itself, and therefore it is medically and ethically unjustifiable and absurd. My opinion is not based on any religious reasons, but on the civil and scientific ones. It is the opinion of a member of the Royal College of physicians, a member of the American College of physicians and a candidate for the Nobel Prize.<ref>{{cite web
|author=Vladimír Krčméry
|title=Stanovisko-Krcmery (public claim by Krcmery)
|publisher=CBR Europe
|location=Slovakia
|url=http://web.pravonazivot.sk/stanovisko-krcmery/
|language=Slovak
|access date=06.05.2012
|quote=}}</ref>}}}}
I checked the source provided and it's not in English. I Googled it and just get foreign language results. Maybe he really did say that but it's also possible someone could've added a pro-abortion quote as a joke. I just don't know. But I don't think a section for a single quote like this is really worthwhile anyway, especially way at the bottom of the page. It would need more quotes to make it worthwhile, and I think it's better to incorporate good quotes into the page itself when possible anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 10:37, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
Because the quote is an obvious translation, it's somewhat poorer quality too, at least for an English wiki page. And having a whole subsection just for it is kind of a waste, especially when most English speaking people can't even verify that he actually said that. I really dislike that and think removing it cleans up the page a bit for better appearance, and shortens the TOC. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 10:39, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
==TOC Location==
I'd like to suggest moving that Table of Contents up on the page. It really doesn't look very good all the way down there. Won't it go below the Lede anyway? And isn't the Lede where all the "insights" and vital statistics to be shown on the 1st page are anyway? The Lede takes up pretty much the whole 1st page anyway. If more needs to be shown, why not just add a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:TOC_right&action=edit template for TOC right like Wikipedia has], to show the TOC on the right so more text can fit beside it? --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:07, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
== Recategorization ==
Let me know what everyone thinks about the recategorization. I moved up some new sections I wrote on Reasons on Abortion and When Does Life Begin that really debunk common arguments on abortion and show beyond all shadow of a doubt that abortion is occurring as murder. I changed four subsections on health risks into a single section with subsections, Health Concerns.
A big change was the TOC right template. This lets the TOC float right and have content beside it, REALLY improving the page's performance. I also thought it looked good to have statistics near the top giving basic info for people, and moved that one up. A chart there displaying this visually, like the Reasons for Abortion section has, would really be a good improvement I think.
Anyway, let me know what everyone thinks. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 10:56, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
==Use Of The Term Murder==
All murder involves killing but not all killing is murder. That is clear by the Conservative Bible Project's revision of "thou shall not kill" to "thou shall not murder." Murder a legal term referring to the unlawful killing. If we are to insistent on calling abortion murder (which by the way abortion is a legal and murder is a legal term) we risk being inconsistent with our terminology. Semantics perhaps but it goes to the integrity of the site. --DavidS 19:50, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
== My Edits Reverted ==
To Conservative:
I would appreciate some explanation of the revision of all of my edits, which added citations for fetal pain, removed redundant Planned Parenthood information in the opening, and updated the abortion count. Admittedly, the sources were not cited correctly, but were there neverhtless. Some response would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks.
== Edit request ==
Would an admin please add this sentence: <code><nowiki>Objectively and logically speaking, it is a form of murder<ref>Taylor, Paul F (May 2, 2014). [https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/abortion/is-it-really-a-matter-of-life-and-death/ Chapter 12: Abortion: Is It Really a Matter of Life and Death?]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''The New Answers Book 3''). Retrieved January 22, 2017.</ref> as well as child sacrifice.<ref>Ham, Ken (October 26, 2015). [https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/abortion/abortion-and-child-sacrifice/ Abortion and Child Sacrifice]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 22, 2017.</ref></nowiki></code> Mr. Schlafly disapproved of adding it to the intro, but had no problem with adding it elsewhere in the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:31, 6 February 2017 (EST)
== See also category link ==
It seems the bot pulled that link because technically, we're not supposed to include see also links to category pages. I don't much care, but the manual of style says that someplace. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:42, 6 February 2017 (EST)
:If we are not allowed to use them, then I don't mind removing it (even though I don't really mind at all either). I just wanted to restore any questionable bot changes (even though this one is not questionable after all). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:51, 6 February 2017 (EST)
::I appreciate you keeping a critical eye on it--something can always go wrong. I can't quickly pick out that rule/guideline in the manual. It is mentioned [[Conservapedia:How_to_create_and_maintain_high-quality_articles#Categories|here]] though. I don't want to be going around bashing the rules over peoples' heads. I just wanted to find out why it did that, and once I did, wanted to let you know. Cheers! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:05, 7 February 2017 (EST)
== Late term abortions ==
This is a good article on late-term abortions: [https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortionists-third-trimester-abortions-healthy-babies] <br/>
Not sure it is is useful for this page, and I don't have much time to look now. I just figured I'd park it here in case I or anyone else wants to make use of it. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 19:31, 16 February 2019 (EST)
== Resources for mothers ==
I don't know if there is an appropriate way to provide information in mainspace regarding an expectant mother's options, but it seems like that might be a good idea. For example, [https://www.liveaction.org/learn/resources/ here] is a list of some great resources, such as [https://optionline.org OptionLine] and the International Helpline for Abortion Recovery (866-482-5433) --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 19:55, 19 March 2019 (EDT)
== Hippocratic oath==
It might be worth adding to this that the ORIGINAL Hippocratic oath itself speaks against abortion (as well and euthanasia): "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art." However, the oath has be modified to exclude this statement, as can be seen [https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20909 here]. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 15:47, 28 August 2019 (EDT)
