Replies

Saundra, there's a link between pregnancy, onset of menses, number of births, age at first birth, breastfeeding, length of time breastfeeding, and age at which breastfeeding first occurred and breast cancer. ALL of these have stronger statistical links to breast cancer than abortion is alleged to have. If abortion could possibly have any link to breast cancer it would be for the same reason that breastfeeding for a shorter rather than longer time has a link to breast cancer: both get a woman back into the cycle of ovulation sooner. The greater a woman's total number of fertile cycles, the greater her chance of developing breast cancer. Abortion, though a bad thing for many other reasons, isn't adding a risk, it's merely interrupting the reduction of risk. Because of this, a woman who has had a mid-second trimester abortion would still suffer less risk of breast cancer, all else being equal, than a woman who has never given birth and has never breastfed. Face it, you're using something that's statistically not even substantiated for a political and moral purpose. Although your ultimate goals are to be praised, you still shouldn't abuse science. What you are doing is almost exactly equivalent both in methodology and tactics to what global warming advocates are doing with the greenhouse effect and CO2 (of course, in their case their end goal is nothing to be praised for). Lest you think to characterize me as being pro-abortion, I'll just say that I have written and posted some of the best anti-abortion pieces ever to have appeared on FreeRepublic.

Excuse me. I'm not in this all alone. A cancer researcher by the name of Dr. Joel Brind is the science behind this endeavor (among others). Science IS on our side. For victory & freedom!!!

What you are doing is almost exactly equivalent both in methodology and tactics to what global warming advocates are doing with the greenhouse effect and CO2 (of course, in their case their end goal is nothing to be praised for).

What this suit does is NOT equivalent to the enviro-wackos. They are trying to tie what is a naturally occuring cycle of warming to activities of humans. This cannot be proven, as there is no evidence, indeed there is contrary evidence to their claims.

In the case of the breast cancer/abortion link, it has been shown in several studies that there IS a direct link when there is INDUCED abortion. If it were just that when the pregnancy is ended there could be a risk, then that risk should appear when women have miscarriages before a first live birth, and this does not seem to be the case. That is because the body has been 'preparing' hormonally for the miscarriage so that there is not an abrupt and un-natural change in the hormone levels as there is with an induced abortion.

You are right.

Whatever the ends may be, there is more politics than science in the means.