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.
undifferentiated cells, even if cancer vulnerable, don’t necessarily result in cancer.
~~~~~
But they can .. and
I would hope no one is saying abortion IS THE ONLY REASON FOR BREAST CANCER. That would certainly be disingenuous and false, but there are enough powerful hormonal processes artificially interrupted, as I understand it, that it can be a catalyst to problematic cell changes.
Also, I think it’s pretty well accepted that, the more periods a woman has in her lifetime the greater her risk of cancer CAN be.
~~~~~
Pregnancies Lower Breast Cancer Risk In BRCA1 And BRCA2 Mutation Carriers
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44228.php
~~~~~
http://bcpinstitute.org/reproductive.htm
A woman who has a full-term pregnancy decreases her breast cancer risk.
A woman who is childless has increased breast cancer risk.
The timing of pregnancy in the course of a woman’s reproductive life is crucial to breast cancer risk.
The longer a woman waits before having her first child, the higher her risk because she has a longer “susceptibility window.” For example, a woman who gives birth at 18 has a 50-75% lower risk of breast cancer than a woman who waits until she is 30