Abortion Predicts Breast Cancer Better Than Other Factors, Study Shows

LifeNews.com ^ | October 4, 2007 | Steven Ertelt

[rhema]

A new study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons yesterday finds that abortion is the best predictor of whether women will contract breast cancer. Abortion also is a better indicator of future breast cancer issue than six other commonly used factors. Patrick Carroll of the Pension and Population Research Institute in London conducted this new study and showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence.

"Induced abortion is found to be the best predictor, and fertility is also a useful predictor," he writes. "The increase in breast cancer incidence appears to be best explained by an increase in abortion rates, especially nulliparous abortions, and lower fertility."

He found that, when abortion rates are low such as in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, a smaller increase is expected.

And in nations experiencing a decline in abortions, like Denmark and Finland, a similar 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. He based the model on cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004.

In four nations -- England & Wales, Scotland, Finland and Denmark -- he discovered a social gradient unlike that for other cancers. He found upper class and upwardly mobile women have more breast cancer than lower-income women.

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, he explained.

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 new study in a statement sent to LifeNews.com.

"It's time for scientists to admit publicly what they already acknowledge privately among themselves that abortion raises breast cancer risk," she said.

Malec said such scientists need to "stop conducting flawed research to protect the medical establishment from massive medical practice lawsuits."

Read the new study at jpands.org.

[millerph]

Excellent point(s).

As far as I know a comprehensive study dealing with all these factors hasn’t been done. One would think that womens groups would be screaming for it, so why not? Maybe some of the answers are assumed and not politically correct.

I went to a seminar recently dealing with natural hormones. They talked about the increase in the incidence of breast cancer, it has gone from 1 in 50 to 1 in 8 and expected to go to 1 in 6. They drew an interesting correlation between the rise in breast cancer and synthetic hormones, i.e. birth control and Premarin. There are lots of people that do not want this information even speculated on.

[freespirited]

How about the correlation between diet and breast cancer? Asian women (in Asia) who ate a typically low fat Asian diet (lots of vegetables, rice, little meat, no frying in fats) had very low rates of breast cancer. With the introduction of Western foods, rates have dramatically increased.

The author picked seven factors to study. Diet wasn't one of them. He then concluded that abortion was the strongest predictor, and from there that the relationship is causal. A dramatic leap without the kind of literature review and discussion one would expect before drawing such a conclusion.

Actually, I am not sure this accurately describes the work. The author sounds convinced he has a causal relationship from the get-go.

I realize that many people may want to believe that abortion is a cause of breast cancer (which it may or may not be). But it is better to rely on high-quality research. The lack of objectivity here is too evident.

[Mila]

Thank you so much for taking the time to look up this information. I greatly appreciate it.

[Mila]

“My wife and I have been through the same situation a couple times. It sucks in a way worse than anything can suck. Prayers.”

Oh, I’m so sorry that you have had to go through such a terrible ordeal, and more than once. Thank you for your prayers and I will return the same kindness for you and your wife. Having witnessed the pain that this young woman and her husband are experiencing makes me sadder than I have ever been. She is a strong person, stronger I’m sure than I would be under similar circumstances but, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the tears have flowed unabashedly.

[CarrotAndStick]

You’re welcome!

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for the ping.