National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

[JudeBrando]

Could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system? That would seem to make simple sense and be a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?

I realize that this is most politically incorrect and that some immediately do not want to hear it, but this matters and should be worth very serious scientific examination and consideration, not prompt dismissal because of political preferences, shouldn't it?



"NCI Researcher Now Agrees: Louise A. Brinton, largely responsible for getting the government-funded NCI to deny the abortion-breast cancer link, has co-authored another study which now describes significant risk factors, including "induced abortion." The study also says that these risk factors are "consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women."

"Endocrinologist Dr. Joel Brind of Baruch College in New York City is the original dissenter at the NCI's conference that rejected the abortion link to breast cancer. In Dr. Brind's report on this NCI researcher's paper, read about another finding reported by Brinton, the 320% increase in risk for women taking the birth control pill to develop TNBC, Triple Negative Breast Cancer, a particularly aggressive and treatment-resistant cancer."

"At Johnson & Johnson's April 28, 2011 annual shareholder meeting, a co-author of a 2006 Mayo Clinic Proceedings report, testified of their published meta-analysis, that, "After reviewing all of the world's data, we found that... if women took oral contraceptives prior to the birth of their first child, which is when most women take them [that these] women incurred a 44% increased risk" of breast cancer and "that the World Health Organization had recently classified oral contraceptives as a Group 1 carcinogen - the most dangerous type known to humankind."

"...Frontiers of Medicine in China... added their own meta-analysis which "found that women who took oral contraceptives sustained a 112% increased risk in developing breast cancer."

http://americanrtl.org/cancer

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[JudeBrando]

"Former Komen medical research analyst Eve Sanchez Silver explained to the Komen officials that she resigned from Komen two years ago because the organization denies the scientific studies showing the link between abortion and breast cancer, and it provides funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. Professor Joel Brind, PhD endocrinologist from Baruch College in New York City attended the meeting after saying on Denver radio that, "the 2003 conference of the National Cancer Institute which denied abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer refused to allow attending scientists to present the opposing position of the scientific research establishing the link, showing that abortion was declassified as a cancer risk for political and not scientific reasons."

Further, "The NCI's own statistics show that breast cancer has increased, and only in women who were of child-bearing age when abortion was legalized in 1973, so much so that nationally, cancer would have steadily declined, except it has held steady at the expense of women getting breast cancer," said Dr. Brind."

http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/n...e-cure-protest

[ben m]

Can't tell the difference between abortion and contraception = fail.

[JudeBrando]

"Study Shows 'Best Predictor of Breast Cancer'"

"The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer,"...

"In four countries - England & Wales, Scotland, Finland and Denmark - a social gradient has been discovered (unlike that for other cancers) whereby upper class and upwardly mobile women have more breast cancer than lower class women. This was studied in Finland and Denmark and the influence of known risk factors other than abortion was examined, but the gradient was not explained.

Carroll suggests that the known preference for abortion in this class might explain the phenomenon. Women pursuing higher educations and professional careers often delay marriage and childbearing. Abortions before the birth of a first child are highly carcinogenic."

"It's time for scientists to admit publicly what they already acknowledge privately among themselves - that abortion raises breast cancer risk - and to stop conducting flawed research to protect the medical establishment from massive medical practice lawsuits," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer."

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/...1002/index.htm


"Study: Turkish Women with Abortions Have Statistically Significant 66% Increase in Breast Cancer Risk / Researchers Likely Underestimated the Risk, Reports Scientist

"A retrospective study conducted by Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul Medical Faculty and Magee-Women's hospital reported a statistically significant 66% increase in breast cancer risk among women who'd had any abortions."

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/...0728/index.htm


"Study: Chinese Women With Abortions Have Statistically Significant 17% Increased Breast Cancer Risk / Scientist Argues Researchers Underestimated Risk"

"Chinese researchers Peng Xing and his colleagues conducted a case-control study in Northeast China examining reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer. They found a statistically significant overall odds ratio of 1.17 (17% increased breast cancer risk for all subtypes combined) among women with induced abortions."

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/...1111/index.htm

[JudeBrando]

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/feathated

""My goal," says Joel Brind, "is to expose the linkage between abortion and breast cancer in the public mind. When women realize this is something that's dangerous to women, who's going to choose it?""


""Within a few days after pregnancy, the corpus luteum, which is in a woman's ovary, begins to secrete large quantities of a number of hormones," Brind told the crowded courtroom. One of those chemicals, estrogen, makes the breasts grow in preparation for nursing. In the early months of a first pregnancy, "the breasts may be adult size, but the tissue is rather primitive. In other words, it's not specialized for producing milk. It's mostly able just to grow, to proliferate." Later in the pregnancy, he said, the growth switch clicks off, and those cells differentiate into mature, milk-producing cells.

"Now, primitive cells, because they're programmed to grow, are more likely to be sensitive to carcinogenic stimuli," Brind said. If a woman has an abortion, she's left with a large number of these immature cells lining her breast ducts, and she is therefore more vulnerable to cancer down the road—30 percent more vulnerable, Brind says, than a woman who has never had an abortion.

This, the endocrinologist believes, is a terrible truth that the medical establishment—including the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization—has tried to keep from the public."

"Women Have a Right to Know,"

"Brind reserves his harshest words for groups such as the National Cancer Institute, which until its recent equivocation spent almost a decade reassuring the public that abortion appeared not to trigger breast cancer. Brind has charged scientists and staff there with engaging in "a miscarriage of scientific justice" and a "cover-up" of the truth."

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have no cred here Jude. I'll let someone else waste their time looking into this doubtful claim.

[Lowpro]

(Seem's I'm the sucker Ginger)

It's worth posting information against the Abortion-Breast Cancer Hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio...cer_hypothesis

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastC...-breast-cancer

Quote:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice also reviewed the available evidence in 2003 and again in 2009. ACOG published its most recent findings in June 2009. At that time, the Committee said, “Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”

In 2004, the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, based out of Oxford University in England, put together the results from 53 separate studies done in 16 different countries. These studies included about 83,000 women with breast cancer. After combining and reviewing the results from these studies, the researchers concluded that “the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.” These experts did not find that abortions (either induced or spontaneous) cause a higher breast cancer risk.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99701093360201

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0423185607.htm

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...on-miscarriage

I can't find too much that gives conclusive evidence for the hypothesis of the immature cells becoming cancerous because of an abortion (natural or otherwise of course) but it seems even Brinton cannot find conclusive proof and instead took a different angle to argue that the real failure is not warning women of the increased risk of breast cancer even though there doesn't seem to be conclusive proof of the claim. I will say though that I don't know too much about the development of the immature cells. I would expect that miscarriages should also lead to an increase in breast cancer but I cannot even find any particular study for that other than those that conflate with abortions. Overall the studies with a large good pool of participants find no correlation.

I also have VERY serious doubts about the Turkish findings (and that website you linked it from in general) but Peng Xing while not a name I've heard seems legitimate. My problem is that his study doesn't play with this study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.1263/pdf which is also a China study!

And then you have other studies too:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...3.0.CO;2-0/pdf


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../ijc.22001/pdf <---- EPIC study which had a large pool of participants.

The reason I find Peng Xing's paper so dubious is because its data doesn't play against the other data, but I cannot find the paper to determine its methods =\

Edit: https://springerlink3.metapress.com/...ringerlink.com it's here by I'm not gonna shell out my 35 bucks for it

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

(Seem's I'm the sucker Ginger)

It's worth posting information against the Abortion-Breast Cancer Hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio...cer_hypothesis

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastC...-breast-cancer



http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99701093360201

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0423185607.htm

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...on-miscarriage

I can't find too much that gives conclusive evidence for the hypothesis of the immature cells becoming cancerous because of an abortion (natural or otherwise of course) but it seems even Brinton cannot find conclusive proof and instead took a different angle to argue that the real failure is not warning women of the increased risk of breast cancer even though there doesn't seem to be conclusive proof of the claim. I will say though that I don't know too much about the development of the immature cells. I would expect that miscarriages should also lead to an increase in breast cancer but I cannot even find any particular study for that other than those that conflate with abortions. Overall the studies with a large good pool of participants find no correlation.

I also have VERY serious doubts about the Turkish findings (and that website you linked it from in general) but Peng Xing while not a name I've heard seems legitimate. My problem is that his study doesn't play with this study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.1263/pdf which is also a China study!

And then you have other studies too:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...3.0.CO;2-0/pdf


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../ijc.22001/pdf <---- EPIC study which had a large pool of participants.

The reason I find Peng Xing's paper so dubious is because its data doesn't play against the other data, but I cannot find the paper to determine its methods =\

Edit: https://springerlink3.metapress.com/...ringerlink.com it's here by I'm not gonna shell out my 35 bucks for it

So a god botherer is posting lies/distortions from other god botherers to support imposing his views on others.

[Travis]

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter. Abortion is still a very good option for women. It sure beats bringing unwanted kids into a world where God Botherers would have them suffer.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Travis

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter. Abortion is still a very good option for women. It sure beats bringing unwanted kids into a world where God Botherers would have them suffer.

Not to mention significantly safer overall than carrying the fetus to term; if the god botherers really cared about the health of women they'd have few objections to abortion.

[Dinwar]

What would the possible mechanism be? I mean, for chemically-induced abortion there's the chemicals, but is that any different from, say, a fetus being stillborn (often a hormonal thing)? And if it's a mechanical abortion technique how is there ANY causal connection between aboriton and breast cancer?

The idea is silly on the face of it. The fact that it's coming from someone with an axe to grind makes it that much worse.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

"At Johnson & Johnson's April 28, 2011 annual shareholder meeting, a co-author of a 2006 Mayo Clinic Proceedings report, testified of their published meta-analysis, that, "After reviewing all of the world's data, we found that... if women took oral contraceptives prior to the birth of their first child, which is when most women take them [that these] women incurred a 44% increased risk" of breast cancer and "that the World Health Organization had recently classified oral contraceptives as a Group 1 carcinogen - the most dangerous type known to humankind."

From the WHO in 2005: "Combined oral contraceptives As stated in IARC’s review, the use of COCs modifies slightly the risk of cancer, increasing it in some sites (cervix, breast, liver), decreasing it in others (endometrium, ovary). Some of these data refer to older higher-dose COC preparations. Assessments based on risk-benefit calculations are carried out by different teams within WHO. Several WHO committees work on creating evidence-based family planning guidelines and on keeping them up-to-date on a continuous basis. They regularly review the safety of COCs and assess the balance of risks and benefits of COC use and they have determined that for most healthy women, the health benefits clearly exceed the health risks."

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealt..._statement.pdf

[ben m]

And JB's dubious "source":

Quote:

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit organization founded in 1943.[1] The group was reported to have approximately 4,000 members in 2005, and 3,000 in 2011.[2][3] Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey;[4] the executive director is Jane Orient, a member of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. AAPS publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, but the journal is not included in Web of Science or MEDLINE/PubMed lists of peer-reviewed scientific sources.[5].

...

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel,[36][37] is the journal of the association.

...

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed[39] nor the Web of Science.[40] The National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[3] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[3] including:

• 
  that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;[41]
• that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution;[42]
• that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;[43]
• that HIV does not cause AIDS;[44][45]
• that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[46]
• A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.[47][48] Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[49] the American Cancer Society,[50] and the World Health Organization,[51] among other major medical bodies.[52]

A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[53] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[54] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and wrote: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."[55]

Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[56] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News by editor-in-chief Rudy Baum described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[57] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[58]

[Lowpro]

Oh damn I didn't know that ben m O.o although I didn't see the AAPS being part of the sources Jude linked unless they themselves are comments from the AAPS's funded projects.

I still want to find that Peng Xing paper because I doubt the AAPS pulled strings in China, and I want to see it compared to the Shangai study.

[ben m]

Lowpro, AAPS is cited in JB's third post.

[Lowpro]

Ah i see, I was looking at his links.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Jude,
You do realize that up to 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage, right? And that as miscarriage often occurs very early in the pregnancy, it has been speculated that actually, more than 50% end in miscarriage because they happen before the woman even realizes she's pregnant. And of course, most abortions also take place very early in the pregnancy, just like miscarriages.

If you are going to argue that abortion causes cancer and for that reason should not be done, then you also should be telling women not to ever get pregnant, because they are at significant risk of miscarriage and thus, according to you, at risk of breast cancer. there are plenty of ignorant people who are unaware of this danger and plenty of babies need adopting. You should be advising all women to adopt rather than take this risk by getting pregnant. Or at the very least, should be advising them of the risk as they have a "right to know."

And in general, as others have already pointed out, pregnancy itself has many real, verified short and long term health risks associated with it.

I don't know why you think doing something to a woman's reproductive system is inherently dangerous to her overall health. Working at a cancer hospital, gynelogical cancer is very common and women have to have things removed all the time, an ovary, her uterus, etc. Now of course, any surgical procedure itself has risks - but that's from the surgery, not from the absense of the reproductive organ; and obviously if you say, have your uterus or both ovaries removed, you will lose your ability to bear children. But simply having one's uterus removed is like having one's tonsils removed. There aren't implications to a woman's overall health just because a non vital organ like an ovary has been removed (again, past the surgery and the time period right after the surgery when complications can arise).


Now contraception is another matter. There are health risks to contraceptions, and that's why my birth control comes with a long package insert that lists all the health consequences I risk by taking it. I am well informed of these risks but consider them worth not having an unplanned pregnancy.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

Could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system? That would seem to make simple sense and be a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?

Wait a second.

You state that abortion could negatively impact a woman's reproductive system.

You then discuss breast cancer risks.

You think breasts are part of the reproductive system?

Seriously?

Seriously??

SERIOUSLY?????

The level of ignorance presented in this thread is simply astounding.

[GodMark2]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

You think breasts are part of the reproductive system?

Well, a nice¹ set of breasts will certainly improve a woman's chances of reproduction.




¹Large, small, firm, soft, or whatever the bloke fancies. I won't judge.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Travis

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter. Abortion is still a very good option for women. It sure beats bringing unwanted kids into a world where God Botherers would have them suffer.

Said already by Catsmate1 but bears repeating, pregnancy is very dangerous for women. And for the most part currently, we've made great progress in treatment for breast cancer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

What would the possible mechanism be? I mean, for chemically-induced abortion there's the chemicals, but is that any different from, say, a fetus being stillborn (often a hormonal thing)? And if it's a mechanical abortion technique how is there ANY causal connection between aboriton and breast cancer?

The idea is silly on the face of it. The fact that it's coming from someone with an axe to grind makes it that much worse.

Not that I think there has been any reliable evidence supporting the OP claim, but if there were, the first thing I'd look at is ruling out the confounding problem that having one's first child late in life or remaining childless slightly increases the risk of breast cancer.

[Dinwar]

Same here--and based on the OP's claims, I'd say the researchers would be hard-pressed to factor socio-economic factors out of the equation. A lot of what the OP's references discuss amount to "Poor people have more children earlier in life and die younger than affluent people".

[Lowpro]

That's why I find the China study interesting because China's a GREAT place to study abortion because there is a social license for it so more people have them and report them and manage their pregnancies.

Just a great amount of subjects to examine.

[ThunderChunky]

Here's a copy of the Xing paper in case you didn't get one.

[JudeBrando]

Originally Posted by skeptic ginger

you have no cred here jude. I'll let someone else waste their time looking into this doubtful claim.

1.

Originally Posted by judebrando

could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system? That would seem to make simple sense and be a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?

2.

Quote:

i realize that this is most politically incorrect and that some immediately do not want to hear it, but this matters and should be worth very serious scientific examination and consideration, not prompt dismissal because of political preferences, shouldn't it?

[JudeBrando]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I can't find too much that gives conclusive evidence... cannot find conclusive proof... doesn't seem to be conclusive proof of the claim.

Who said anything about anything "conclusive"? Therefore what?

[JudeBrando]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

so a god botherer is posting lies/distortions from other god botherers to support imposing his views on others.

"Lies"?!

"Imposing"?!

Should a woman have a right to now?


1.

Originally Posted by judebrando

could unnatural tampering with a woman's reproductive system have negative health consequences to a woman's reproductive system? That would seem to make simple sense and be a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?

2.

Quote:

i realize that this is most politically incorrect and that some immediately do not want to hear it, but this matters and should be worth very serious scientific examination and consideration, not prompt dismissal because of political preferences, shouldn't it?

[Dinwar]

Quote:

i realize that this is most politically incorrect and that some immediately do not want to hear it, but this matters and should be worth very serious scientific examination and consideration, not prompt dismissal because of political preferences, shouldn't it?

There needs to be a name for this fallacy: the typical woo idea (I'd almost say it's diagnostic of the group) that "scientific examination" is something other than looking for flaws in your study. That's what peer review IS--experts looking through your study and seeing just how many holes they can poke in it. So a group of people bringing up serious concerns--for example, disentangling socioeconomic factors from the medical ones, dealing with when the people have the children, when they have the abortion, dealing with spontaneous abortions, dealing with the different types of abortion methods, etc--is actually seriously considering the research. They're saying "This is worth thinking about--and unfortunately it's not good enough to go any further. Here's what they should be doing." If we weren't giving it serious consideration, we'd have blown it off and laughed at at.

As far as academic research or corporate research--the big double-blinded studies and the like--you're going to have to present a plausible mechanism. Until then, you've only got a correlation, and we all know that that doesn't equal causation, right?

[JudeBrando]

Originally Posted by Travis

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter.

Studying possible evidences of other cancers that have been greatly increasing in our lifetimes "wouldn't matter" either, Travis?

[JudeBrando]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

There needs to be a name for this fallacy: the typical woo idea (I'd almost say it's diagnostic of the group) that "scientific examination" is something other than looking for flaws in your study. That's what peer review IS--experts looking through your study and seeing just how many holes they can poke in it. So a group of people bringing up serious concerns--for example, disentangling socioeconomic factors from the medical ones, dealing with when the people have the children, when they have the abortion, dealing with spontaneous abortions, dealing with the different types of abortion methods, etc--is actually seriously considering the research. They're saying "This is worth thinking about--and unfortunately it's not good enough to go any further. Here's what they should be doing." If we weren't giving it serious consideration, we'd have blown it off and laughed at at.

As far as academic research or corporate research--the big double-blinded studies and the like--you're going to have to present a plausible mechanism. Until then, you've only got a correlation, and we all know that that doesn't equal causation, right?

Dinwar, should potential causes of breast cancer be studied?

Dinwar, are there any potential causes of breast cancer that should not be studied?

[JudeBrando]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

So a god botherer is posting lies/distortions from other god botherers to support imposing his views on others.

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Not to mention significantly safer overall than carrying the fetus to term; if the god botherers really cared about the health of women they'd have few objections to abortion.

I wonder why animosity toward God was your point twice?

It would seem that you are evidence of:

"Rebellion against God expresses itself in many ways. Promoting the intentional killing of innocent children who are made in His image and likeness is one of the strongest ways to show hatred toward God. This is why our godless culture is so pro-abortion that it will even sacrifice women to breast cancer on the the same altar on which they dismember unborn children."
http://americanrtl.org/cancer

catsmate1, do you hate God?

[JudeBrando]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Jude,
You do realize that up to 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage, right? And that as miscarriage often occurs very early in the pregnancy, it has been speculated that actually, more than 50% end in miscarriage because they happen before the woman even realizes she's pregnant. And of course, most abortions also take place very early in the pregnancy, just like miscarriages.

If you are going to argue that abortion causes cancer and for that reason should not be done, then you also should be telling women not to ever get pregnant, because they are at significant risk of miscarriage and thus, according to you, at risk of breast cancer. there are plenty of ignorant people who are unaware of this danger and plenty of babies need adopting. You should be advising all women to adopt rather than take this risk by getting pregnant. Or at the very least, should be advising them of the risk as they have a "right to know."

And in general, as others have already pointed out, pregnancy itself has many real, verified short and long term health risks associated with it.

I don't know why you think doing something to a woman's reproductive system is inherently dangerous to her overall health. Working at a cancer hospital, gynelogical cancer is very common and women have to have things removed all the time, an ovary, her uterus, etc. Now of course, any surgical procedure itself has risks - but that's from the surgery, not from the absense of the reproductive organ; and obviously if you say, have your uterus or both ovaries removed, you will lose your ability to bear children. But simply having one's uterus removed is like having one's tonsils removed. There aren't implications to a woman's overall health just because a non vital organ like an ovary has been removed (again, past the surgery and the time period right after the surgery when complications can arise).


Now contraception is another matter. There are health risks to contraceptions, and that's why my birth control comes with a long package insert that lists all the health consequences I risk by taking it. I am well informed of these risks but consider them worth not having an unplanned pregnancy.

Schrodinger's Cat, IF abortion and chemical contraception increases breast cancer,
does it matter to you even if it doesn't apply to you?

[JudeBrando]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

That's why I find the China study interesting because China's a GREAT place to study abortion because there is a social license for it so more people have them and report them and manage their pregnancies.

Just a great amount of subjects to examine.

Inarguable, you would think...

So you do agree that it is worth study, right?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

I wonder why animosity toward God was your point twice?

It would seem that you are evidence of:

"Rebellion against God expresses itself in many ways. Promoting the intentional killing of innocent children who are made in His image and likeness is one of the strongest ways to show hatred toward God. This is why our godless culture is so pro-abortion that it will even sacrifice women to breast cancer on the the same altar on which they dismember unborn children."
http://americanrtl.org/cancer

catsmate1, do you hate God?

You can't hate something that doesn't exist.

[Resume]

Hey Jude:

How about women who spontaneously abort, otherwise known as miscarry? What's your little study say about them?

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

Who said anything about anything "conclusive"? Therefore what?

Do you even need to ask this question? Not that I appreciate you picking out from my post since it almost pretends that there was nothing else in there to give proper context or anything...


Point is your OP had bad data and they got caught. Rather than admit they suck at research they just clamor and say it's a cover-up. The data does not support their claim.

Sucks for them.

Quote:

Inarguable, you would think...

So you do agree that it is worth study, right?

Worth doesn't matter anymore. Many studies were done and they show no positive link between breast cancer and abortion. The pet theory of the link between breast cancer and abortion isn't validated.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

Dinwar, should potential causes of breast cancer be studied?

Sure. We studied your claim, and found it to be wanting.

Quote:

Dinwar, are there any potential causes of breast cancer that should not be studied?

Depends on what you mean by "studied". If you mean "Should people waste vast resources and allow many, many women to die because they're chasing some idea that doesn't even include a plausible mechanism", I'd say that yes, there are potential causes that shouldn't be studied. I mean, the mere fact that someone said that something may have some impact on breast cancer isn't enough to justify diverting limited funds, supplies, and time to studying that thing--until it's at least plausible, as well as potential, we simply don't have the resources to devote to it. And I say this as a member of a family that's genetically susceptible to breast cancer, meaning that this is an issue that I take personally (my sisters WILL get it, and my daughters, if I should have them, WILL get it).

Now, since you've gotten Begging the Question and Equivocation out of your system, care to actually address my points? Or are you incapable of doing so? Your OP claims that abortion causes breast cancer. What is the causal connection? How did they factor age out of it? How did they factor socioeconomic factors out of it? How did they deal with spontaneous abortions? And so on. This is what we call "research"--someone made a claim, and we're evaluating it. If you don't like it, you don't want to do research, simple as that.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

"Lies"?!

"Imposing"?!

Should a woman have a right to now?

Yes, lies. Distortions of dubious studies promulgated by people who know they're untrue or don't care to support their agenda.
I assume you mean "know"? No I don't support lying to people to persuade them to comply with your beliefs.

I note you haven't addressed my point about abortion being safer than pregnancy...............

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

I wonder why animosity toward God was your point twice?

Not toward your mythic god, just towards those who try to impose their beliefs on others using that god as an excuse.

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

It would seem that you are evidence of:

"Rebellion against God expresses itself in many ways. Promoting the intentional killing of innocent children who are made in His image and likeness is one of the strongest ways to show hatred toward God. This is why our godless culture is so pro-abortion that it will even sacrifice women to breast cancer on the the same altar on which they dismember unborn children."
http://americanrtl.org/cancer

More garbage from the god botherers.
Why did your god design a reproductive system that aborts some many of the "innocent children"?

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

catsmate1, do you hate God?

Awwwwwww, isn't that cute, now he's parroting one of the standard lines used by the god botherers when faced with questions and facts they can't answer.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Said already by Catsmate1 but bears repeating, pregnancy is very dangerous for women. And for the most part currently, we've made great progress in treatment for breast cancer.

A quick google, while my players plan their landing on a plague ravaged planet, and some browsing of the US CDC data indicates:

• The Maternal Mortality Ratio for the US is 13.3/100k [2006] and the trend is upward.
• Data from the National Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System shows 10 deaths due to spontaneous abortion and 4 due to legal induced abortion. [Data for 1999, the latest year I could find]
• Given 861,789 legal abortions performed that's a mortality rate of 0.46/100k legal abortions.

Now I know this is a gross oversimplification and doesn't account for non-fatal consequences but I find it interesting.

Now, I've a Traveller game to ref.