Posted on 10/03/2007 4:09:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
Yep, ribbons have done wonders to stop the spread of AIDS.
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.
See post #62.
bump
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.
Of all the women who I have known who have had breast cancer, not one had ever had an abortion.
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.
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.
That's anecdotal evidence, but more importantly, personal involvement with abortion is something that women may be reluctant to speak truthfully about.
Who is excited?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Screw you for inferring that my grandmothers and great aunt had abortions.
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?
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.
No, it isn't.
But you knew that.
Are you that lost? Why do you (generic of you, of course) grope at reasons to commit murder of the unborn?
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?
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.