Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Study Shows Abortion is 'Best Predictor of Breast Cancer'
LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/3/07 | LifeSiteNews

Posted on 10/03/2007 4:09:23 PM PDT by wagglebee

WASHINGTON, DC, October 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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," and fertility is also a useful predictor. 

The study by Patrick Carroll of PAPRI in London showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence. Where abortion rates are low (i.e., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected. Where a decline in abortion has taken place, (i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.

Carroll used the same mathematical model for a previous forecast of numbers of breast cancers in future years for England & Wales based on cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004.

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.

Carroll used national data from nations believed to have "nearly complete abortion counts." Therefore, his study is not affected by recall bias.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer commented on the latest findings stating: "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."

See the new study online here:
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; breastcancer; cancer; denmark; england; fertility; finland; fredthompson; guiliani; hillary; medicine; prolife; scotland; wales
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: Aquinasfan

Yep, ribbons have done wonders to stop the spread of AIDS.


61 posted on 10/04/2007 7:56:49 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Correlation does not imply or prove causation.

When there is a reasonable explanation for the correlation (a disruption in hormones), it's reasonable to assume a causal relationship.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

The Abortion/Breast Cancer Summary


62 posted on 10/04/2007 8:06:33 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
I’m curious... could a natural miscarriage increase one’s chances of breast cancer?

See post #62.

63 posted on 10/04/2007 8:17:04 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

bump


64 posted on 10/04/2007 9:03:52 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; Amelia

So according to your theory, the alleged abortion-breast cancer link could be avoided if women hurried up and had their abortions very early (a good reason to eliminate all legally mandated waiting periods and other time-consuming hurdles) or wait until after 32 weeks and then have the abortion.

Funny, but all these “researchers” claiming that abortion causes breast cancer seem disinterested in looking at the breast cancer rates of the many women who have babies prematurely, well before 32 weeks.


65 posted on 10/04/2007 9:18:23 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Amelia

Of all the women who I have known who have had breast cancer, not one had ever had an abortion.


66 posted on 10/04/2007 10:11:21 AM PDT by Rita Hayworth (Vote for a guy who had 399 House Bank overdrafts totaling $129,000? Yeah right!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I don’t buy it. I think that it has more to do with heredity. Unless they did something to factor out the heredity link, the study is meaningless.


67 posted on 10/04/2007 10:15:55 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
So according to your theory, the alleged abortion-breast cancer link could be avoided if women hurried up and had their abortions very early

True. But the result for the baby is the same.

(a good reason to eliminate all legally mandated waiting periods and other time-consuming hurdles)

That argument could be made. But the truth is the truth.

or wait until after 32 weeks and then have the abortion.

Few abortions occur this late in pregnancy, probably because most women are fully aware of their child's "babyhood" at this point.

Funny, but all these “researchers” claiming that abortion causes breast cancer seem disinterested in looking at the breast cancer rates of the many women who have babies prematurely, well before 32 weeks.

Well, the explanation I posted addressed the issue of miscarriage, which is physically more similar to abortion.

68 posted on 10/04/2007 10:24:29 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Rita Hayworth
Of all the women who I have known who have had breast cancer, not one had ever had an abortion.

That's anecdotal evidence, but more importantly, personal involvement with abortion is something that women may be reluctant to speak truthfully about.

69 posted on 10/04/2007 10:28:50 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Getting excited about cancer is pretty creepy

Who is excited?

70 posted on 10/04/2007 10:30:45 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

A decline in production of progesterone does not account for a large number of miscarriages. 50 - 60 % are the result of embryonic insufficiency. Your theory doesn’t make sense.

There is not a scientific study that has tied abortion with an increase in breast cancer risk. The only way there might be a meaningful study would be to study identical twins, where one has had an abortion and one hasn’t. That might successfully screen out environmental and genetic factors. Even if your theory made sense (it doesn’t), this study was nothing more than a speculation about which countries have more breast cancer and why.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose abortion. #1 being that an innocent child is being murdered. This correlation isn’t necessary, and I think it does more damage than good. We are right, and pro-abortionists are wrong. There is not need to be deceptive.


71 posted on 10/04/2007 11:59:23 AM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ga medic
A decline in production of progesterone does not account for a large number of miscarriages. 50 - 60 % are the result of embryonic insufficiency.

OK, but at least about half then, by your admission. And it's possible that the body has a healthier way of reacting to miscarriage than with abortion. In fact, this is probable, if in fact "research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk."

Your theory doesn’t make sense.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.
This makes sense to me. What's wrong with this reasoning?

There is not a scientific study that has tied abortion with an increase in breast cancer risk. The only way there might be a meaningful study would be to study identical twins, where one has had an abortion and one hasn’t.

Is epidemiology scientific?

Abortion/Breast Cancer Graphs

72 posted on 10/04/2007 12:22:37 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

undifferentiated cells, even if cancer vulnerable, don’t necessarily result in cancer. That is problem one. This isn’t the only cause of precancerous cells by a long shot. That is problem number 2.

you misunderstood my statistics, 40 - 50 percent of miscarriages result from all other causes, one of which is progesterone deficiency. Like I said, this is not a common cause of miscarriage, because it is monitored, and easily remedied with oral medication. I doubt the percentage of miscarriage from this cause is greater than 5 or 10 percent.

Yes, epidemiology is scientific, but it is an entirely different area of study. Identifying correlations and cause and effect is an important part of science. Creating theories and hypotheses to explain correlations is also important. That is where this study leaves off.
The next step is to create a study that will test the theory, and provide scientific evidence that it is correct or not correct. Like I said earlier, in this case, the author could follow up with a scientifically designed study, that would provide a control group and a test group, where all known factors for breast cancer risk are screened for and controlled. Once this study has been conducted and the results have been analyzed, then the conclusions will have some scientific validity. The abortion/breast cancer correlation hasn’t taken the next step to a scientifically designed study, which is why it isn’t widely accepted.

I still stand behind my comments. Abortion kills an innocent baby. Could there be a more compelling reason to join this cause? LifeSiteNews has the cause right, but their methods are wrong.

I feel strongly about the pro-life movement, but we need to pursue our goals with the integrity and character befitting a cause where the lives of innocents are at stake.


73 posted on 10/04/2007 12:46:24 PM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ga medic

I also got cancer when I was three (rhabdomyosarcoma), by the grace of God I am still alive today. We also forget there is evil in this world, and sometimes things just happen for reasons we can’t imagine.


74 posted on 10/04/2007 1:09:44 PM PDT by LukeL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
That's anecdotal evidence, but more importantly, personal involvement with abortion is something that women may be reluctant to speak truthfully about.

Screw you for inferring that my grandmothers and great aunt had abortions.

75 posted on 10/04/2007 1:21:58 PM PDT by Rita Hayworth (Vote for a guy who had 399 House Bank overdrafts totaling $129,000? Yeah right!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Do I believe abortion exists, or do I believe that it's moral?

I didn't ask you that. I simply asked if you believed in abortion.

I believe that abortion is murder. That doesn't mean I think this study proves it causes breast cancer, however.

It is well documented that some people support murder. So far, you haven't differentiated yourself from that. Is that a fair assessment?

76 posted on 10/04/2007 4:59:04 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I’ve seen the attitude you project about this subject before. It comes from liberal Democrat women primarily, but also from Christie Todd Whitman types in the GOP.

Great example of deflection. Rather than addressing my argument, you indirectly accuse me of being too liberal to hold the "correct" beliefs, or of ignoring the "facts" because I am too liberal.

In effect, you are throwing personal insults rather than addressing facts or effectively arguing your case.

I could provide you with studies from here to eternity, and you’d reject them anyway.

Since you haven't provided even one, we must wonder if (a) you don't really have any studies to provide or (b) the studies you could provide are just as flawed as this one.

And frankly, I don’t have time to beat my head against that wall.

Typical. You never do seem to have time to provide facts to back up your "arguments" but you always have time for an insult or two for anyone who asks you to provide proof.

77 posted on 10/04/2007 5:02:31 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: bjs1779
It is well documented that some people support murder. So far, you haven't differentiated yourself from that. Is that a fair assessment?

No, it isn't.

But you knew that.

78 posted on 10/04/2007 5:04:36 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: mountainbunny
If you (the generic you, of course) weren't telling the truth about abortion being a direct link to cancer, were you telling the truth when you said a fetus is an individual? If people can throw away part of your argument, they will throw it all away and your point will be lost.

Are you that lost? Why do you (generic of you, of course) grope at reasons to commit murder of the unborn?

79 posted on 10/04/2007 5:13:19 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
No, it isn't. But you knew that.

That's the point, I didn't know that. Let's start with a simple question so that nobody gets confused after these exchanges. Do you believe in abortion? Can that be a yes or no question?

80 posted on 10/04/2007 5:21:33 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson