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?