[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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

[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.