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.

[Khepera]

Hello? Is this the rotweiler Womans Progressive Health center? It is? Is Dr. Tiller there? He is? Can you give him a message? You will? What? No! I'm not a patient but I need to talk to him about my Mommy. Yes, Yes thats right I'll hold.

Dr Tiller? Hi My Name is Sheri and you saw my mommy in there a couple of years ago! Yes she's fine. No you didn't get to give her an abortion. No, she is OK. No, those Religious people talked to her after her first visit to you and she was drawn to Jesus Christ. I just wanted you to know if it where up to me you would be on trial for murder! Hello? Hello? Dr. Tiller?

Dang he hanged up on me!

[ArGee]

Unfortunately, the studies are not definitive by any stretch.

I don't know Kirsten so I'm not sure why she would write this piece, but I can never understand why someone wants to reduce the arsenal to the only argument they like. That would be like the Army saying "we shouldn't be building tanks - we should only be using M-16s."

If you can't get them to agree that abortion is murder of the preborn, then get them to agree that it's dangerous for the mother. If you can't get them to agree that it's dangerous for the mother, then convince them it's unfair to the father. If you can't get them to agree that it's unfair to the father, convince them they might get breast cancer.

Just convince them not to abort. That's the important thing.

Oh, and as to the quote above - there's a better correlation between abortion and breast cancer than there is between Saccharin and cancer - yet Saccharin carries a federally mandated warning. So should abortion infanticide.

Shalom.

[John H K]

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.

Ummmmmmmmm, no.

Those ideas are only not valid if abortion increases the risk of DYING of (not just getting) breast cancer by a higher % than having an abortion instead of carrying a baby to term and having it increases the risk of death during childbirth.

Childbirth isn't nearly as risky as it was for most of human history, when death was routine (tens of millions of women have died in childbirth) but there is still risk involved.

Pretty obviously, a 4% increase in breast cancer (and only a fraction of that 4% increase in cancers are increased deaths) is not going to be more than the increased risk of death by having a full-term baby or c-section over the risk of an abortion.

If you are opposed to abortion the whole breast cancer thing is a stupid argument and a waste of time.

[CyberCowboy777]

Nice piece - Bump

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Two of the leading ABC researchers are Dr. Brind and Dr. Kahlenborn. I had dinner last night with Dr. Kahlenborn, I work with him on pro-life issues, and I'm on the board of his research institute.

I may be prejudiced, but I can assure you that this debate will not persist for more than another 5 years.

The evidence is massing so quickly that it will be no more credible to claim there is no ABC link than it is credible to claim there is no link between smoking and lung cancer.

The abortion idustry today stands where big tobacco stood several decades ago.

All they can do is deny the obvious and hope, because abortion is PC, that trial lawyers ignore the obvious connection.

Trial lawyers will not ignore the deep pockets of big abortion, a multi-billion dollar industry.

Therefore the ABC link will only be able to be denied for so long.

The link is real, it is fact, it is bogus science to deny it, and it will be beyond debate within 5 years.

Just IMHO.

--Dr. Kopp

[LibertyGirl77]

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.

The problem is really that statistics can be spun any way you like. If you look at the entire population of women as a whole, it is probably more accurate to say that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, since women who have had abortions, women who have miscarried, AND women who never were pregnant are all more likely to get breast cancer later on than women who bore children. Unless we want to stigmatize all childless women, it is probably not the best idea to go around saying they will get breast cancer due to their lack of offspring.

There are so many angles to this debate that are worth exploring; unfortunately, an opinion column is limited to 600-700 words. That's why I prefer live debate--you can get to every point more quickly.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I have 5 copies of the book, "Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill," by Chris Kahlenborn, MD, sitting here on my desk in front of me. They cost $25 a piece, but I will mail a copy, free of charge, to anyone who sends me a Freepmail with their name and address, until my current supply runs out.

Until one has read the definitive treatment of this subject, one should not make the claim that there is no valid evidence.

28 out of 37 studies (76%) reveal a link between breast cancer and abortion.

18 out of 21 studies (86%) since 1980 (i.e., lower hormone dosages) reveal a link between use of the birth control pill and breast cancer.

In 50 years, the incidence of breast cancer has increased from 1 in 13 to 1 in 7.9.

Decreased breastfeeding, smaller families, and delayed childbearing account for a percentage of this increase.

All studies looking for links to diet and environmental toxins have found none.

A vast majority of studies looking at a link between breast cancer and abortion, and between breast cancer and the pill, have found a strong link.

The pill was introduced in 1960. Abortion was legalized in 1973.

Logic dictates that abortion and the pill make up a large part of the increased incidence of breast cancer in the last 50 years.

--Dr. Kopp

[Notwithstanding]

It is not about cancer as a scare tactic to dissuade moms from choosing abortion.

The ABC case tacticly speaking is about exposing the fact that the abortion-mongers do not inform moms about the "medical procedure" nor do they give a damn about women's health.

==========

I laud your strong pro-life stance!

[ArGee]

Logic dictates that abortion and the pill make up a large part of the increased incidence of breast cancer in the last 50 years.

This is Free Republic, so you can use logic here. Just don't try it with liberals. It makes them act funny.

There really isn't a wish for this, but "Happy Lent." Enjoy your break.

Shalom.

[MHGinTN]

Every human individual lifetime begins at conception. abortion is the willful withdrawing of life support for an individual life already existing. All other perspectives are a form of apologetics for choosing to use serial killing as enlighened social policy. Can all abortion be stopped? No. There are rare times when an abortion must be performed if a woman's life is to be saved. Even on those rare occasions, it would behoove us to admit an individual lifetime already begun is being ended by choice. Can anyone given m to me other instances when willfully ending an individual lifetime in progress is correct? [Hint: I know of no instance where a capital criminal has returned from the grave to commit capital crime again. The death penalty saves life, just as aborting a tubal pregnancy saves life. Any other suggestions?]

[Brad’s Gramma]

Bttt

[Moosilauke]

Well stated. Thank you for speaking the truth plainly. The appeal to junk science is just as objectionable when it comes from the right as when it comes from the left.

That said, I hope you have the asbestos shields in position for the inevitable flaming that will result.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

You are exactly right. I work in the medical field also, and those of us who do, know this correlation to be true. This correlation has nothing to do with religion or politics. I have seen it firsthand. Two very close friends of mine were diagnosed with breast cancer. One of them was 27. She died when she was 32. The other friend was 39 and is still alive today three years later. Both of them had abortions. Thirty years ago it was almost unheard of for a young woman to get this. In the past 30 years, breast cancer incidences have skyrocketed. Three things have changed in these past 30 years: birth control pills, abortion, and menopausal estrogen replacement therapy. The evidence is strong for all three as increasing the incidence with abortion being the worst of the three. This is not junk science. Dr. Brind has been working on this for years. His website is www.abortioncancer.com

[EODGUY]

I don't know if having an abortion may untimately lead to breast cancer, actually I pray it doesn't in that I will no illness on anyone.

I do know beyond any doubt, however, that abortion kills one human being EVERTIME.

[IM2Phat4U]

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

I agree. We can not unilaterally disarm when it comes to using these types of arguments. Take advantage of everything we can to save lives. File lawsuits and drive up the cost of abortions!

[spectre]

With all due respect to you posting this, let me take issue with the misleading headlines.

I don't know if Abortion CAUSES breast cancer, or if ALL women who have abortions get breast cancer or even if 50% of them do. Now, what I do KNOW is that way too many women are coming down with BC and given the fact we have been subjected to the wonderful virtues of the "pill" and Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), there were and are risks involved and one of them, is Breast Cancer (BC)

Another point. There are women who get BC and there is no known aggravation for it. Some BC's are hormone dependent, others not. Is it the environment? Something in the food? Air, Water? A blow to the breast? With over 400 different types of Breast Cancer, take your pick what it's caused from.

I'll wager there are too many women to count, on this forum, who are alive and reading this thread who have, or have had BC. Most of them, have probably never had an abortion. Would this be the first thought in someones mind, when they hear of a loved one with BC, "did they have an abortion"? I sincerely hope not.

To place women who have BC in the same category as those who have had abortions is extremely offensive to me. BC is not the scarlet letter.

sw

[jed turtle]

"Take advantage of everything we can to save lives. File lawsuits and drive up the cost of abortions!" amen to that idea! it works for the ACLU- the threat of lawsuits keeps the schools shaking in their boots. it works for the anti-smoking lobby. and the abortionist industry certainly has deep pockets. if their conscience won't leave them shaking in their boots, no doubt a letter with the signature of a lawyer representing a class of clients will hurt 'em where they can still feel pain: in the bank account...

[nickcarraway]

Part of the argument pro-choice people use effectively is how much they care about women. The fact that they will go to great lengths to ignore the cancer question contradicts this. If they really cared about women as much as they said they did, then theyed be interested in the risks of cancer and infertility.

[dubyajames]

While I disagree with the implication that the abortion/breast cancer link is based on "flimsy" science, I think the overall point is valid. The pro-life position should be defended on its own merits and those of us who support it should not be distracted by side issues.

[supercat]

Every human individual lifetime begins at conception.

What about identical twins?