From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) at 03:08, October 25, 2010. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search


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.[1] 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.--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. 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? Crucialwood 03:43, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

From my perspective, it looks like Jesus on the cross. --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.


At the continued rate, racism by abortion will kill decimate the black populace of the U.S.

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? --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? --₮K/Talk 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. --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. ConcernedScientist 10:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Maintain the neutrality of the article

Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--Nosferatu.feuertote 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a "billion dollar industry", neither of the linked "references" make any claims about the value of the "abortion industry". I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first "source":

Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents.

The second "source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual.


"The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." Is a bit weasly. Hippocrates also would not perform surgery, and definitely interfering with the heart was out of the question. But we know how many people are prevented from dying through heart-surgery. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the oath in the first paragraph. Teji 15:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

"This is Conservapedia"

Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" are opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not really a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' nuanced statement on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.
Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

Dpbsmith 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid. --CWilson 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference

That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--Aschlafly 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I assume that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... Dpbsmith 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)
I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. PhilipB 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)
Is there any denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"
Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra. Surely Catholics are Christians?
And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? Dpbsmith 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)
Reply: It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19
It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I do believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
And, though abortion is never directly called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25
Reply: It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.
It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --David R 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)
Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.
Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. JoshuaZ 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [here] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --David R 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)JoshuaZ 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --David R 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). JoshuaZ 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.
At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even implanted, indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about two and a half weeks. At four weeks the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until week eight, and the arms are little more than budsbuds. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until 12 to 14 weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. Smudgepuss 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. PhilipB 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. JoshuaZ 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
Reply The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --TimSvendsen 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)
REPLY: Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--Aschlafly 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)
No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. JoshuaZ 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are Conservapedia --Will N. 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[2]]

The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:


Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

  • if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion
REPLY: There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. Smudgepuss 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

  • if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party
REPLY: There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.
  • if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.
REPLY: Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence. -Neurocat

REPLY: I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--Aschlafly 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--ChrisF

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 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 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 --EldestportTalk!Work 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. 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. --Neurocat 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--ChrisF

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

profitability of abortion

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - Suricou

Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"

Regarding [3], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. JoshuaZ 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--Aschlafly 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. JoshuaZ 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)
As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). JoshuaZ 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)
It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so thoroughly dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).
I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the other side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)
They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are certainly not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. Dpbsmith 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)
Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [4] for example.

Franklin.jefferson 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

  • I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. Dpbsmith 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)
Due diligence:
  • Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[5]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[6]. Dpbsmith 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)
  • National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their mission statement says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the Innocent Child Protection Act says "This bill does not reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."
I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life should imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. Dpbsmith 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)
REPLY Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.
Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--Aschlafly 18:38, 2 March 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.--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.[7]

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 [8]. 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.--Aschlafly 12:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Article weight

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. JoshuaZ 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

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? --ColinR 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The harm caused by the operation is most important and should receive greater weight.--Aschlafly 15:45, 12 May 2008 (EDT)


the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--AustinM 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --JamesLipton 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --Brooker

The Bible clearly indicates in Jeremiah 1 and the Psalms that God regards an unborn baby as being a fully human being separate from any other, and as such, is subject to the protection from being murdered in the 6th Commandment. The Bible also has a great deal of historical evidence to support its accuracy. A read through Josh Mcdowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" should help to demonstrate this. Luojie 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

Seriously, please add this to the article

This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by The Conservapedia Commandments.

  • 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

While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --Scott 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Alternatives to abortion

Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get pregnant in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from sex before marriage. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use contraception to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for adoption. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a family until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

  • Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --EldestportTalk!Work 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. Zondergard
Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --Scott 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. Eldestport, are you able to reference it from your law book? --Scott 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

Add Category:Abortion

Since the page is edit blocked, please add Category:Abortion Crocoitetalk 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Definition of abortion

According to the linked definition part 1 (and these online medical dictionaries), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. Smudgepuss 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia

Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If Sex isn't allowed, this article has to go. --ReaganLives 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --JamesLipton 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

Reply to the above

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--Aschlafly 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion and Breast Cancer

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--Fpresjh 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet:

and racial grouping:

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer:,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion:

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. Britinme 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: --TempestHead 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--Aschlafly 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - LouisFriend 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Every study denying an ABC link that I have looked at, such as Harvard Abortion Study, I have found to be fraudulent or misleading. How many of those pro-abortion studies have you actually looked at? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
Denying, pro-abortion? LOL, nice wording. Your opinions on these studies do not permit you to pretend they don't exist and not include them in the article. I have read recent studies, and GASP, I find them flawed regurgitations of scientific consensus. Doesn't excuse your excuses and assumptions about me and the researchers. After you're done getting over yourself and "pro-abortion" notions (people/scientists are allowed to simply be wrong without a grandiose agenda), mention them in the article with relevant (referenced) criticism; if you can't find criticism, then include them anyway! Also, don't refer to the studies as "Lancet" and "Harvard", that is authoritative wording used by anti-abortion breast cancer reporters (which makes up the majority, something you should also substantiate/analyze in the article, but you don't bother). Instead you should call these studies, "Melbye" and "Michels" studies, to clarify shortsighted people can be in charge scientific studies, not just online encyclopedias. If you just reference marginalized science and scientists, then your article will be of marginal quality, importance and persuasiveness. But hey, whatever, it's conservapedia that ends up looking bad. - LouisFriend 19:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. Murray 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. Learn together 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
That does not answer why studies indicating no link are not included. The answer seems obvious, they aren't included because people write about what they want to hear. There are very large studies indicating no link -- which form the current scientific consensus by the way -- and so should be included. Murray is assuming they are "methodologically sound," I do not take the NCI's nor the media's interpretation of the evidence at face value; but how people here think it is okay to excluded from the article is beyond me.
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. - 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. --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.--Aschlafly 19:23, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
[9] references a study that puts nuns at a greater risk for breast cancer. [10] is another that refrences a study for nuns at greater risk for breast cancer. [11] 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). --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.--Aschlafly 20:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Historical view of abortion

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). Terryeo 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--Aschlafly 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.
Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is forced to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--Aschlafly 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. Britinme

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--Aschlafly 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT


Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago. --Daerean 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--Aschlafly 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [12] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --Crackertalk 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT


So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. Theonlyedge 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Not all the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --Scott 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally, Conservapedia is not a free encyclopedia, but a trustworthy encyclopedia. If vandalism or edit clashes break out then pages should be blocked. --Additioner 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

What do the above comments have to do with whether something is "free"? Nothing as far as I can tell.--Aschlafly 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

death rate

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is

A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.

Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, all women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who have had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --Scott 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--Sersabian 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Requested edits

  • Service with a smile. Thanks! --Interiot 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Billion Dollar Industry

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [13]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? Myk 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? Myk 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed the same thing that 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?--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.--Aschlafly 15:44, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Scientific/Medical background needed

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --TomT 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia


Conservative 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.AtheistKathryn 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.
If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--Aschlafly 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ Evolution - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-AmesGyo! 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? Murray 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-AmesGyo! 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) Murray 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --Jeremiah4-22 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-AmesGyo! 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks - and right back at you. Murray 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Listen up

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. At this point there is no credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--PalMDtalk 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT) And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. Murray 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--PalMDtalk 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 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? Chrysogonus 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See Talk:Breast cancer. That may help answer your question.--PalMDtalk 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


Please see talk:Abortion alternatives to see why I am confused. --Scott 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

But what about the benefits of abortion?

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:

  • Saving the mother's life
  • Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
  • Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer

I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --TomT 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Abortion and breast cancer, again.

See JoshuaZ 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia:

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: However, are there more sources?

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link:

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

Conservative 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. JoshuaZ 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).
I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
The point isn't that Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad! but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. Silverfish 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.
Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.
A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the Economist published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--Aschlafly 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. JoshuaZ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--Aschlafly 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). JoshuaZ 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --Britinme 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--Aschlafly 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --Britinme 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.
History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--Aschlafly 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--Britinme 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--Aschlafly 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--Britinme 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???
Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--Aschlafly 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. Silverfish 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--Aschlafly 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:

  1. Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose elective abortion rather than bring their baby into the world
  2. There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in breast cancer

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --Ed Poor 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

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.--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.

Related news article:

Study abstract:

Full text of study:

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

Quick question

What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --Hojimachongtalk 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exodus 20:13JoyousOne 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks :D --Hojimachongtalk 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
That says "thou shalt not kill". I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The "thou shalt not kill" rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --Hojimachongtalk 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually, it says "You are not to murder". For many of us, that includes life in the womb. I am probably a bit more liberal than some, in that I do feel it is ok to debate the issue, but if you believe, as i do, that an unborn child is human, then "No murder" applies.JoyousOne 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm using the Bartleby online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says "thou shalt not kill". I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says "thou shalt not kill" as well. Which version are you using? --Hojimachongtalk 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.JoyousOne 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between "dont kill" and "dont murder", including such issues as the death penalty, etc. Some will argue (perhaps correctly) that nearly-cannonical translations such as KJV can be taken as is since they are so widely accepted. I could go on forever, but I wont. JoyousOne 20:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Round 2

I never seem to have gotten a clear answer above, so I'll try again: Where does the Bible say that life begins at conception? --Hojimachongtalk 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

The lack of an answer so far is very encouraging. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that life begins at conception is not a universally shared one and actually a certain paradox exists because of that reason. The idea is that "potential life" is created at conception. Many people, apparently, believe that life begins at conception as a cell is formed, however whether this is actually life depends on your definition of "life". I assume that from a religious perspective one would assume that this is the moment where the soul enters the body and the soul is then released when it is killed and thus the moment it is actually immoral to cause the destruction of that life. To my understanding people of the Jewish faith believe that life begins with one's first breath. This being said I know of no reason why that definition has changed with Christianity, and I am not aware of any Bible verse that discusses when a soul enters a body. So, unless I'm wrong no biblical scriture mentions anything about abortion. It does bring up an interesting point in the process. The first ammendment of the American Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, thus providing a legal definition of when "life" occurs and making abortion prior to that point would be restricting the religious freedoms of others because it is creating morality where morality is unclear and different according to different religions and beliefs. --Theseus 22:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Logical problem with breast cancer link.

I see a logical problem with what appears to be a an attempt to link abortion to a number of health problems. Opposition to abortion is not based on the notion of risks to the mother, it is based on the risk to the fetus. There is a 100% chance of fetal death. If studies showed conclusively that say: Abortion had no effect on cancer risk and Early term abortion was safer for the mother than full term delivery (Which it is), pretty much all the people who oppose abortion now would still oppose abortion, because of the fetal death issue.

--Irish 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

The logical flaw is yours. The link between abortion and breast cancer should be disclosed to the mother regardless of one's views on abortion. It is the abortion industry and its allies and recipients of federal funding who have a motivation to cover up this link, which cannot seriously be disputed.--Aschlafly 23:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
Any doctor should disclose all known risks and benefits for any procedure, and my comment did not seek to dispute the existence of a link. I am not a doctor/cancer researcher and would not pretend to know about that. But the problem is that if it could be shown that an abortion presented lower overall risk, making the choice to abort based on that would still be the height of selfishness and would in my view be immoral. What I am saying is that if you frame an argument against abortion around the relative risks/benefits to the mother you are positioning the debate in some dangerous and territory. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because they feel that they are too poor, too busy or otherwise unable to care for the child and maintain their current standard of living. From a certain point of view they may be correct. That still makes the choice a very selfish and immoral one, and as such thinking about the issue from a risk reward point of view if flawed, some people will always come out on the side of abortion. Essentially the way to frame this is: the doctor has two patients, the mother and the fetus. The principal of "first do no harm" implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--Irish 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Consider to include in "See also" section

I just created an article on the National Right to Life Committee, it might be good to add this to the "see also" section in this article. Thanks, --Tash 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Done. Thanks much!--Aschlafly 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Abortion in minnesota 14,065 abortions in Minnesota in 2006 according to Minnesota Department of Health. FunnyBoy 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I just added it.--Aschlafly 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. FunnyBoy 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Health risks

The section headed health risks should start out with the fact that abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child (except when the child survives, which is even more gruesome). FunnyBoy 23:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)


I think a new section would be justified talking about the use of forced abortion as a population control tool. I personally know somebody who took part in round-ups of women for forced abortion and have personally seen family planning officials stationed outside a block of flats in order to coerce a women hiding in one of the flats to go and have an abortion. Here's my suggestion. Perhaps others could add some improvements

    == Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==

Abortion is not only legal up to full term in the Peoples Republic of China but is frequently used both as a method of birth control and an instrument of enforcement of that country's one-child policy, despite official protestations to the contrary.

From the introduction of the family planning policy in the 1970's until the early 21st century, coerced or forced abortion was used as an instrument of enforcement against women who violated the one child rule. Local officials are held responsible for meeting birth targets in their areas and are usually the ones invovled in such action. In rural areas, teams would be sent out to villages to round up pregnant women without birth permits and take them to a hospital where they would be forced to have abortions. In urban areas, if a pregnant woman was discovered in hiding without a birth permit, the local family planning office would have people stationed by the entrance to the block until the woman either agreed to abort the baby or was forcibly taken.

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. Luojie 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)


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. 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. 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.--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. 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.--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. 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. 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. 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.


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..." -Capricorn 14:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)

That's your sole contribution to this encyclopedia. How about doing yourself a favor, and opening your mind a bit.--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. -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. 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? StephenWU·T·C 23:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Are you serious? Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.--IDuan 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. SMI 14:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Do you equate the acts of a few vandals with public opinion..? --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). StephenWU·T·C 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Stephen: "loses" is with only one "o". Please.--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)--IDuan 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:

<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>

I would add it myself instead of pestering here, but... the article is unfortunately still locked... 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. Yatesan 9:57, 27 June 2008 (EST)


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. Acronym

The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 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. 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astinzo (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008

We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. Karajou 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)


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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pianycist (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2008

Do you find a picture of an unborn child "graphic and jarring"? We don't.--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.--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".--Urban67 17:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Your see also list has Abortion Facts on there twice. Might be wise to remove one. 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.--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.--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.

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.

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.


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.--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)

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?

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?

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:
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? Cwb

Cells are not necessarily human lives.--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? 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.” (

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.

--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. 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. --IsusBineDezaproba 18:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Just start a new entry, like the Abortion and the Bible. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 21:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I did just that, thanks for the suggestion. --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. 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. 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. --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.--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. --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. 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.--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." Shatoyaah 18:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I would say approximately 4-5 months, but I'm not entirely sure.JohnHC 18:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)
It is approximately 3-4 months old.JohnHC 20:44, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

How about high quality video?

How about links to high-quality video also, rather than merely ultrasounds?--Andy Schlafly 22:16, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Sure. Next time I get a chance. 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. 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". 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.--Andy Schlafly 17:22, 31 July 2009 (EDT)


Can someone unlock or edit in for me under See Also this - Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay? Thank youBertSchlossberg 20:13, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Done as requested.--Andy Schlafly 20:54, 4 April 2010 (EDT)


In Russia abortion is allowed at any point during pregnancy. This is litteraly at ANY point until the umbilical cord is cutted. [2]

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war!

Starting this week, Admin Conservative will be spreading awareness of Conservapedia's abortion material. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of a new internet culture war! conservative 17:01, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

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.[3]. 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.) (Thunkful 16:02, 17 June 2010 (EDT))


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. (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. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:42, 17 June 2010 (EDT)


Can I reorganize the article, shifting some of it to specific sub-topic pages to make the main page less bulky?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. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 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.--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.--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.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?--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.--Andy Schlafly 23:08, 24 October 2010 (EDT)