Skip to comments.
FIRST U.S. ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LAWSUIT SETTLED
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer ^
| October 21, 2003
| Karen Malec
Posted on 10/22/2003 12:56:39 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-198 next last
To: discostu
Are you a he or a she?
To: restornu
not that it has the slightest bearing on the discussion but I'm a he.
142
posted on
10/22/2003 3:00:18 PM PDT
by
discostu
(The Joan Wilder?!)
To: Poohbah
"raspberry beret, the kind you find at a second-hand store"
Perhaps you have it mixed up with that sweet gal, "Second Hand Rose"?
To: Javelina
Didja see the threads on the average impregnated-by-rape-or-incest 10-12 year old? Basically, the little harlots ask for it, and should have those babies to give away to some nice baby sales lot, er, "charitably run" adoption agency.
;)
To: discostu
Well do you what goes on when one get breast cancer?
Being a he I doubt it!
To: Chancellor Palpatine
No injury???
What about the baby... it is dead.
To: discostu
I like your tag line. Perhaps you want to see Pepe, my Little Mule.
147
posted on
10/22/2003 3:08:05 PM PDT
by
Hillary's Lovely Legs
(I have a plan. I need a dead monkey, empty liquor bottles and a vacuum cleaner.)
To: Eternally-Optimistic
Read the article, numbnuts. This is about women suing when they haven't had what they're complaining about. Its like you going out and buying a pack of smokes, suing Big Tobacco with no sign of lung cancer.
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
"Perhaps you want to see Pepe, my Little Mule."
That sounds like the line that got the plaintiff knocked up.
To: restornu
That has even less bearing on the discussion, as a matter of fact it's a deliberate attempt to use a logical fallacy to sidetrack the discussion. The discussion is whether or not there's any proof that abortion CAUSES breast cancer. One's gender and one's experience with breast cancer has no bearing on that and bringing it up is an attempt to poison the well and attack the other person. It's a simple matter of logical analysis of the presented data, so far the presented data show a strong COROLATION but no CAUSATION. If you've got new data that shows causation I'd like to see it, if all you're going to do is use cheap and lame tactics in a misguided attempt to perjure my statements in the eyes of other reader I'll kindly ask you to move on.
150
posted on
10/22/2003 3:10:41 PM PDT
by
discostu
(The Joan Wilder?!)
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
Only if we get to take Lupe's escape.
151
posted on
10/22/2003 3:11:41 PM PDT
by
discostu
(The Joan Wilder?!)
To: discostu
Look at those snappers!
152
posted on
10/22/2003 3:13:03 PM PDT
by
Hillary's Lovely Legs
(I have a plan. I need a dead monkey, empty liquor bottles and a vacuum cleaner.)
To: Javelina
Hello! There's a bias by all those organizations you mentioned. They'd have to admit they've been wrong and putting women at risk. It's the culture of the beast. And besides, it isn't politically correct to discuss abortion in a negative light. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
153
posted on
10/22/2003 3:13:30 PM PDT
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
That was my second choice when I decided to grab a tag from Romancing the Stone. Third choice was "I went to college" but I figured that might get me in trouble on a WOD thread.
154
posted on
10/22/2003 3:14:54 PM PDT
by
discostu
(The Joan Wilder?!)
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
A lady I know died from breast cancer. No one knows except me and one other person that she had an abortion. She is not being counted in anybody's research study. How many other "dead women walking" are there?
155
posted on
10/22/2003 3:16:19 PM PDT
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: TheAngryClam
Thus, I plan to make sure to use it when referring to their statements so that it's in their face every time.Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
156
posted on
10/22/2003 3:17:49 PM PDT
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: Poohbah
Future uses of this precedent include enviroweenies saying that, although they HAVEN'T developed cancer from automobile exhaust, there's circumstantial evidence that they MIGHT develop cancer, and thus we need to outlaw all but zero emissions vehicles. The precedent has long been set on these "might develop something" suits with the various tobacco litigations.
Correlation does not equal causation and these types of lawsuits should not even be being brought forth to begin with.
If all of the potential risks of ANY elective surgical procedure are not disclosed to a patient, and the patient winds up with one of those previously undisclosed potential risks, yes a suit is probably warranted. I see no such thing here.
If there is a truly causative link between abortion and breast cancer it must be shouted from the mountain tops by everyone. Even if it is only a weak link, it still needs to be made known. Lawsuits about potential harm are NOT the way to go. all these type lawsuits do is fill the pockets of the liberal-left trial lawyers.
157
posted on
10/22/2003 3:18:11 PM PDT
by
Gabz
(Smoke-gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - SWAT'EM)
To: Javelina
Told ya so :)
To: Saundra Duffy
Bad week for the death industry. Good job.
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
Maybe you can sue Microsoft.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-198 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson