Carcinogens and the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link (Hint: Abortion Does Cause Breast Cancer)

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer ^ | May 20, 2003 | Karen Malec

[Saundra Duffy]

Just more proof that women are being exploited by the abortion industry. "Keep 'em ignorant!" They're laughing all the way to the bank.

[Saundra Duffy]

Partial ping

[Koblenz]

I still think that moral, and not medical, arguments will carry the day in the abortion debate. Medical issues such as the breast cancer link don't really belong in the political arena...

[Saundra Duffy]

Another ping

[WilliamWallace1999]

Early pregnancy in life has a PROTECTIVE EFFECT on the breasts. That does not mean that abortion cause breast cancer, abortion kills a baby and ends a pregnancy. The leap of logic to conclude that abortion causes breast cancer would also have to be applied to this theorem, ABSTINENCE CAUSES BREAST CANCER which is a true statement with you twisted statistics. Women who abort and kill their babies do not have a higher rate of breast cancer than women who have never been pregnant, that is the control group. You can't use knocked up teen moms having babies on Medicaid, soaking up foodstamps, and eating govenment cheese as the control group.

That is the lapse in logic that lead to the discounting of the abortion-breast cancer linkage. The whole topic was a waste of energy and undermined the solid and logical arguments against abortion LIKE IT IS MORALLY WRONG. Instead the pro-life forces have been exposed as prevaricatiors and have lost legitimacy in the publics eye. The movement should have chosen a different battle.

[eboyer]

They also show similar links to breast cancer in women that choose to not breast feed except I remember the numbers being higher.

[Coleus]

Since 1957, there have been 28 studies linking abortion to breast cancer. It's old news but the liberals and demons in the press, schools and democrat party have been supressing this information!

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research.htm

http://www.realage.com/news_features/tip.aspx?cid=13400&ref=1

http://www.breastthermography.org/ instead of mammography

http://www.mercola.com/2002/mar/23/omega3.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2002/jun/5/fish_oil.htm

http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/section18/chapter242/242c.htm

http://www.cancermed.com/
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/


“According to Dr. Joel Brind, President of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, there is a 30% increased risk of breast cancer linked with abortion among the general public. Presently this translates into an additional 5000 -8000 cases of breast cancer per year, however by the year 2020, this number may be as high as 40,000 - 50,000,”

[Coleus]

Abstinence doesn't cause increased rates of breast cancer. The hormones used for gestation are still in full production when a baby is aborted. This is the reason why the cancer rates increase, these hormones produce the growth of cells and when there is no baby in utero to grow these hormones work on other cells thus the increase in cancer.

I know for a fact doing sidewalk counseling that the health risks to women associated with abortion have led to a number of "saves".

So, what "battle" do you propose that we do?

[valkyrieanne]

Very good points. To get a full picture, you have to compare women who have never been pregnant, ever, yet who are physically healthy (i.e. who don't have some other medical problem that would make them have cancer in later life) with women who are also healthy but have had at least one abortion - and *no* further children. For the first group, I would think nuns would be an excellent demographic. (From what I've read, nuns have a higher rate of female cancers in general than women as a whole.)

Nor do I think this article is accurate regarding the protective value of pregnancy over age 30. From what I've read, having several children over age 30 and breastfeeding them *does* give some protection against later breast cancer.

Further, any study done *must* distinguish between pre-menopausal & post-menopausal breast cancer. They are radically different diseases even though they have the same effect. Similarly, you have to control for genetics (i.e. the presence of the identified cancer genes), and lifestyle indicators that lead to breast cancer as well.

I'm not sure how much teenage pregnancy really protects against breast cancer, since there are so many *other* cancer risks correlated with teenage pregnancy: illegitimacy, poverty, poor access to health care, obesity, use of hormonal birth control (like Norplant), exposure to drugs and alcohol.

Somehow I don't think these controls have been, or are being considered. I too oppose abortion because it kills a baby, but dubious science isn't the way to convince people.

[valkyrieanne]

Abstinence doesn't cause increased rates of breast cancer. The hormones used for gestation are still in full production when a baby is aborted. This is the reason why the cancer rates increase, these hormones produce the growth of cells and when there is no baby in utero to grow these hormones work on other cells thus the increase in cancer.

The way it works is this. Every month, estrogenic hormones stimulate a woman's ovaries to make an egg "mature" and be released. Those same estrogens also stimulate the breast, on a monthly basis. This monthly stimulation going on for year after year *does* form a significant breast cancer risk. If a woman never has a child, assuming she's healthy otherwise, she has a higher risk of breast cancer than a woman who's had at least one child.

So yes, complete abstinence from childbearing throughout life *does* pose a cancer risk. Our "ideal" human pattern (which we don't live out because it's largely incompatible with our economic and social system) is for girls to be married several years after their first period, and to either be pregnant or nursing almost continuously until their forties. In this scenario, a woman will have very few periods - maybe a couple every 3-4 years at most. As it is, women have far more periods throughout their life than nature "intended" for them to have, and there are health consequences.

Is this cancer risk greater, less than, or the same as the supposed risk from abortion? I don't know, because to my knowledge this comparison hasn't been done.

[farmfriend]

I've sent this article to our health committee. Thanks for the post.

[Aquinasfan]

"If a woman does not have a full-term pregnancy (meaning she is childless or nulliparous), she has increased risk for breast cancer, since she never develops (mature, cancer-resistant) type 3 and 4 lobules.

Another indication that pregnancy represents a state of health and that anything that externally interferes with the pregnancy represents a health threat. The same generally holds true with artificial means of contraception.

[Saundra Duffy]

the liberals and demons in the press, schools and democrat party have been supressing this information!

No kidding.

[Saundra Duffy]

I've sent this article to our health committee.

Excellent, Sis. (Miss you.)

[Saundra Duffy]

Medical issues such as the breast cancer link don't really belong in the political arena...

That doesn't make sense, pal.

[farmfriend]

Are you guys coming up for the rally this weekend?

[Coleus]

I know a lot of Catholic Nuns who live to ripe old ages in their 80's +. Sure, some get cancer, it's part of aging, but most live a long time. I'm sure there are epidemiological studies out there comparing celibate women to those who bear children and those who had abortions.

Is this cancer risk greater, less than, or the same as the supposed risk from abortion? I don't know, because to my knowledge this comparison hasn't been done.>>>>

Mabye you can e mail those on the this website for further information. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

bump!

[HairOfTheDog]

The whole topic was a waste of energy and undermined the solid and logical arguments against abortion LIKE IT IS MORALLY WRONG. Instead the pro-life forces have been exposed as prevaricatiors and have lost legitimacy in the publics eye. The movement should have chosen a different battle.

Good post.

Feigned concern for women getting breast cancer is laughable as a reason to argue against abortion.

[Mamzelle]

Agreed--this line of reasoning muddies many waters, and chiefly serves to raise alarm in women who are childless, who had children late in life, or even had a *natural* miscarriage.

Does this weaken or strengthen the pro-life position...?