Does Abortion Cause Breast Cancer? Why it Doesn't Matter....

PoliticalUSA ^ | February 8, 2002 | Kirsten Andersen

[LibertyGirl77]

Thanks in no small part to a group called the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, or "ABC," it has recently become in vogue throughout the pro-life movement to tout the results of various studies linking abortion to breast cancer. The results of these studies are presented as if they were not only gospel truth, but also the most effective way to prevent any woman from ever considering an abortion.

Unfortunately, the studies are not definitive by any stretch. The disparities between the results of the 37 known studies linking breast cancer and abortion are great. They range from results that are statistically insignificant to an alleged 160% increase in breast cancer risk based on abortion (though the most commonly quoted of the studies indicates a 4% increase in risk). Additionally, many of them make no distinction between induced abortion and spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage.

The abortion/breast cancer activists have a noble, albeit thinly veiled goal -- to end abortion altogether. Their only problem, at least scientifically speaking, is that they started with the conclusion they wanted and worked their way back to a theory. In other words, they needed a scare tactic and went about the business of finding one to suit their target audience -- women.

People say that all is fair in love and war. Well, I love human life and I believe abortion is war against the most innocent of human life. But I do not believe it is fair to the pro-life movement, or to the women being given these statistics, to attempt to balance the entire abortion argument on this one point.

The truth is, even a 4% increase in breast cancer risk from induced abortion is inconsequential to the true heart of the abortion debate. Touting that statistic simply appeals to the same selfish impulses that would compel a woman to consider an abortion in the first place. Now, that may save some pre-born lives now and in the immediate future, which is highly worthwhile, but it isn't really changing any hearts or minds on the abortion issue itself.

The abortion/breast cancer connection is not a miracle fix. It won't change the way our legislators vote. It won't change the way the media cover things. And it definitely won't influence future generations to stop slaughtering their unborn children -- they'll simply direct their resources toward finding a cure for breast cancer. Curing breast cancer is a wonderful goal--but one that, once achieved, will make the abortion/breast cancer link a moot point.

Any possible link to breast cancer in post-abortive women has no bearing on the true argument against abortion, which is that it kills innocent life. Some pro-lifers seem excited that we have a 'real scientific argument' now with this breast cancer debacle, when the truth is that we have had a real argument all along in the form of little heartbeats that once were, but are no more.

Our argument is lasting and unchanging--abortion kills. The breast cancer argument is only usable for as long as the current studies last--which is only as long as it takes before some other pseudo-scientist releases a conflicting study 'disproving' the first studies. Just think of the headache-inducing reports on everything from coffee to hair dye that are staples of the nightly news. One day, we learn that butter will surely kill us all; the next, it's margarine that is the villain. On Tuesday, doctors say we should have a glass of wine nightly; by Thursday, they've changed their tune. Depending on a statistical study as our moral ground in the abortion debate is foolhardy.

Pro-lifers must cease trying to legitimize our efforts through anything other than plain truth. Our efforts are already legitimate, and need no justification--only persistence. Scare tactics and flimsy science do nothing to enhance the veracity of our cause.

[LibertyGirl77]

My latest...enjoy....

[goody2shooz]

I always thought the abortion=cancer link was akin to grasping at straws.

[LibertyGirl77]

Pings all around (I have NO IDEA if I'm bumping the bump lists correctly....).

[nothingnew]

when the truth is that we have had a real argument all along in the form of little heartbeats that once were, but are no more.

BUMP!...Great piece LG77.

FMCDH

[Slyfox]

The people I know, in the pro-life movement, who are working on this subject are also working on other stuff. It is just one of many things they are juggling.

Women are not informed as they are with other procedures that are done to them. When you go to get your tonsils out, the doctor will inform you of all risks, before the procedure is performed. Not so with abortion.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her body sends out hormones to prepare the body for the pregnancy. The hormones that are sent to the breast prepare the breast tissue for the ability to produce milk. The individual cells are 'opened', to use a lay term. The event that 'closes' the cells is brought about after birth when the body is again flooded with hormones to 'close' the cells in the breast. An abortion does not afford the breast tissue to be hormonally 'closed', so the individual cells remain 'open' and consequently looses a natural protection from cancer.

This is not theory this is fact. Abortion has to be fought on all fronts.

[patent]

>>>(though the most commonly quoted of the studies indicates a 4% increase in risk).

>>>>Scare tactics and flimsy science do nothing to enhance the veracity of our cause.

I don't know. I agree with you in part that the real battle is changing hearts and minds, and that the cancer argument does not do that. However, it is my opinion that we should also, while we are fighting the primary battle, not fail to neglect other battles that can change the course. Abortion is an industry, it thrives on profits. The more money we allow into the industry, the stronger it is, the harder it can fight the hearts and minds battle, and the harder we have to fight to win. How is that relevant here?

The abortion industry today claims it is simply providing a medical service. Then it turns around and acts completely free from reasonable medical supervision, rules, controls, etc. It refuses to identify health risks that accompany its services to the patients. Hiding the risks makes the woman more likely to use their services, and increases their income. This, of course, makes it more profitable and thus stronger. I think we have an obligation to hold them to the fire on these things. If there is a four percent increased risk of cancer from any other surgery you can bet your life the doctor would have to discuss it with you. Why should abortion be exempt from that? More to the point, the poltiticians will never hold them to the fire on this, we have to. If we don't, they continue to operate in a free fire zone, killing babies without any restrictions.

If we can get the normal restrictions placed on their practices, they will in fact have less money to fight the hearts and minds battle.

Defund the left, its part of the fight for the hearts and minds.

patent

[LibertyGirl77]

Yeah, but if you go to the ABC site, you can read the studies on this matter for yourself. It's not that the theories don't make sense, it's that the results are so inconclusive. I actually think the ABC girls do themselves a disservice by posting results of all 37 studies, because it illustrates just how widely varied the conclusions are in this research. They should probably choose the ONE they think is the most scientifically sound, stick with it, and only acknowledge the others in the context of, "there are other studies available to back this research up." Sometimes it is not practical or advantageous to lay all the facts out on the table right up front. (Sorry if that sounds really cynical.)

[william clark]

Their only problem, at least scientifically speaking, is that they started with the conclusion they wanted and worked their way back to a theory.

The credibility of this commentary rather severely crashes with this statement. The original studies linking breast cancer were made long before the pro-life movement had any knowledge of the results. The implication here is almost that the studies were sponsored by pro-lifers looking for a result.

The author also shows a minimal grasp of logic when using the stated lack of differentiation in the studies between induced and spontaneous abortion as somehow discrediting a finding that induced abortion itself ups the risk.

[scripter]

Well said, Slyfox. Well said.

[joathome]

Also, I don't think the author seems to ignore the fact that some women are just plain terrified of breast cancer. And some have good reason. It runs in their families. Anyone contemplating a "procedure" that is linked to breast cancer, should be made aware of the "potential" risks, however remote they may seem at the time.

[nepdap]

Any possible link to breast cancer in post-abortive women has no bearing on the true argument against abortion, which is that it kills innocent life.

Your point is well taken. However, many who support abortion have ignored (suppressed, denied, discounted, whatever) the effect on the second life involved, and instead are more motivated by the effect the pregnancy will have on themselves. For these women, discussing a direct risk to themselves may be some (albeit small) deterrent to abortion.

[RooRoobird14]

One out of nine women getting breast cancer get it TOTALLY out of the blue, with ZERO risk factors, ZERO family history.

My oldest sister is the one of the "lucky" one ninth.

Thank God, they caught it very early and she's doing GREAT!!!! (cancer free for a year and a half now)

[kidd]

The truth is, even a 4% increase in breast cancer risk from induced abortion is inconsequential to the true heart of the abortion debate

I respectfully disagree. One of the most common reasons given that promote abortion is that its safe, safer than having the full-term birth. If an abortion increases the risk of cancer by 4%, then these ideas are no longer valid.

[LibertyGirl77]

Praise God for your sister's health.

[jed turtle]

Joel Brind, PH.D., spoke to the Maine Right to Life Convention recently and "is the foremost authority on the link between induced abortion and the increased incidence of breast cancer. He presented slides of some 31 studies published worldwide, from 1967 to 2000. The study found that women who had at least one abortion were, on average, - 50% - more likely to develop breast cancer later in life." i will post more on this a little later. read it and weep - for all those who have been lied to and have not just "lost" their own child, but have signed on to a much higher risk of a very dangerous disease.

[Free the USA]

FYI

[jed turtle]

To follow up... Breast Cancer The single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer is elective abortion. This was the conclusion reached by Joel Brind, Ph.D., the first convention speaker. Dr. Brind is the foremost authority on the link between induced abortion and an increased incidence of breast cancer. He presented slides of some 31 studies published worldwide, from 1967 to 2000. The study found that women who had at least one abortion were, on the average, 50% more likely to develop breast cancer later in life. “Any legitimate branch of medicine, confronted with this information,” said Dr. Brind, “would stop the procedure and take a look.” But not the abortion industry, he added. In fact, Dr. Brind’s slides showed that our most prestigious medical journals are, at best, glossing over this body of scientific information with an “inconclusive” veneer. At worst, they are deliberately concealing the information from the American public. In Great Britain they are more open to receiving scientific evidence on this subject. Thus Dr. Brind’s Comprehensive Review and Meta-analysis was published there in 1996. In the United States, however, “political correctness” demands that the public not be informed. Dr. Ronald J. Carroll, recently retired but long-time president of Maine Center for Cancer Medicine Blood Disorders and also present at the convention, explained why abortion increases the risk for breast cancer. It has long been known, he said, that several human reproductive factors play a role in the biology of breast cancer. Specifically, the number of full-term pregnancies a woman experiences, as well as her age at first pregnancy (the younger, the better), exerts a protective effect against breast cancer. According to Dr. Brind’s presentation, the mother’s ovaries, beginning a few days after conception, start producing large amounts of estrogen. This stimulates the dormant [resting] gland cells in the mother’s breast to multiply. Such cells remain undifferentiated, i.e. not fully mature, until late in pregnancy, at which time a different hormone matures them into milk-producing cells. Induced abortion ends a pregnancy too soon. The estrogen-stimulated, undifferentiated cells are never exposed to the maturation process of late pregnancy and therefore can later turn into breast cancer cells. That breast cancers take many years to evolve is a well-established fact. The data presented by Dr. Brind (from 31 studies) strongly supports a causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Particularly striking was the increase in women who have had an abortion and who also have a family history of breast cancer. Such synergisms are well known with other risk factors in breast cancer and support the hypothesis. The relationship between abortion and the increased risk of breast cancer has not been well publicized. After citing a clearly flawed study with an accompanying favorable editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed “no relationship” between abortion and breast cancer, Dr. Brind left the attendees of the convention wondering about the objectivity of the editors who produce the medical literature. -- Maine Right to Life [LINK]http://www.mainerighttolife.com[/LINK]

[jed turtle]

bttt

[Khepera]

There is an even better reason to not have an abortion and I will present it here:

For the strong among you try This link

The Hard, Dirty, Stinking, Terrifying Truth About Legalized Abortion

• One Day, not so long ago, one of our allies managed to infiltrate a Laboratory in Southern California that receives the babies killed by a particular chain of abortion "clinics". The pictures she took provide you an overview of what legalized abortion looks like up close and dirty.
• Each of those plastic jars contains one little dead person.  The mother's name and the date of the abortion are written on the labels.

• Look closely and you can make out the names of the mothers as well as some of the actual body parts of the children they sacrificed on the altar of the demon of self-indulgence.

• This one stack of receipts documents the babies slaughtered at Family Planning Association, 8888 Fletcher Parkway, La Mesa, California, in one day.
• The laboratory we infiltrated receives babies' bodies from many such "clinics".

• The containers come in all sizes.  These are the largest, containing babies between 20 to 36 weeks old.
• Notice the stains of evil covering the containers.

• It gets no easier to look at the actual caskets of hundreds of little people conceived by God and slaughtered in direct rebellion against God's will..

• Like Legalized Abortion itself, the stains of evil are horrible to behold.

• The least among the babies are bagged like groceries destined for satan's table.

• This gives you a glimpse at the contents of the smallest containers. This person was eights weeks from conception when butchered.

• Look closely at the words printed on the box and you will see the horrible paradox created when babies are killed and babies are birthed in the same facilities.

[Khepera]

Still not convinced? try this link