PRAVDA SLAMS AMERICAN PRESS FOR DENYING ABORTION BREAST CANCER LINK

LIFESITE ^ | August 28, 2002

[NYer]

MOSCOW, August 28, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The Russian news agency PRAVDA online, a break-off online paper of the official (formerly communist) state-run paper, has criticized the American media for concealing the link between abortion and breast cancer. The publication carried a story by Carl Limbacher of NewsMax in which Limbacher makes the point that "thanks to intense pressure from the billion-dollar abortion industry (the ABC link) is a taboo subject for the liberal media establishment."

Citing numerous studies showing evidence for the link, the PRAVDA article warned, "Thousands of women could die because of the failure of the medical establishment and government to warn women of the link between abortion and breast cancer." RFMNEWS.com interviewed Karen Malec, spokesperson for the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, about Pravda's report. "Do American women have to read Pravda to learn the truth?," she asked.

[lakey]

Thanks for the ping.

[Bryan]

I remember a book from my youth that has stuck with me: How to Lie with Statistics and my whole life I've watched the left use every tactic they described.

Oh yeah. Every tactic they described. Systematically.

Now then, in the specific context of this discussion, we must consider whom we are addressing: a woman (usually one who is quite young) who is pregnant (usually for the first time) and contemplating an abortion.

If this is her first pregnancy, is there a greater risk of breast cancer in having the abortion, or in bringing the pregnancy to term? Because we can't turn back the clock and make her "un-pregnant."

It is only by extending the discussion out-of-context that any accusation of intellectual dishonesty gains any validity. We are talking only about pregnant women, not all women.

[Bryan]

Oops, italics OFF.

I wanted to shut them off after the first paragraph. I'll try that again.

[Bryan]

I remember a book from my youth that has stuck with me: How to Lie with Statistics and my whole life I've watched the left use every tactic they described.

Oh yeah. Every tactic they described. Systematically.

Now then, in the specific context of this discussion, we must consider whom we are addressing: a woman (usually one who is quite young) who is pregnant (usually for the first time) and contemplating an abortion.

If this is her first pregnancy, is there a greater risk of breast cancer in having the abortion, or in bringing the pregnancy to term? Because we can't turn back the clock and make her "un-pregnant."

It is only by extending the discussion out-of-context that any accusation of intellectual dishonesty gains any validity. We are talking only about pregnant women, not all women.

There. That's better.

[Evil Inc]

Probably not rock solid evidence, but a far more convincing case than global warming or secondary tobacco smoke science.

[grania]

This is when you know things are f-ed up in Amerika. When we have to go to Pravda for the truth. Unbelievable

During the (outrageous) bombing of Kosovo, posts from Pravda proved to be more reliable and more factual than those from mainstream press sources.

[LibertyGirl77]

You said: "About HALF of abortion cases can be associated with abortion and some others with miscarriage. "

If you can't understand the statistics you're using to make your point, it's best to stay out of the debate, IMHO. Read the studies carefully, with a critical eye instead of a hopeful one (for science is nothing if not critical). If you still can't understand it, here's an explanation in layman's terms:

I am an unmarried woman who has never been pregnant. I currently have X% breast cancer risk (based on lifestyle, family history, etc.). If I got pregnant tomorrow, I would still have X% breast cancer risk. If I killed my baby in utero three months from now, I would STILL have X% breast cancer risk. If I kept my baby but then lost him or her in my sixth month of pregnancy, I would STILL have X% breast cancer risk.

Now, if all went well with the pregnancy, I carried it to term and gave birth to a bouncing baby nine months from now, I would have a lower-than-X% breast cancer risk. By breastfeeding, I would decrease my risk level even more.

[LibertyGirl77]

If this is her first pregnancy, is there a greater risk of breast cancer in having the abortion, or in bringing the pregnancy to term? Because we can't turn back the clock and make her "un-pregnant."

In a relative sense, sure, there is a VERY slightly greater risk of breast cancer in having the abortion AS COMPARED to having the baby. The abortion would keep the status quo/default level of risk she was born with intact. Giving birth would slightly LESSEN that "default" risk level, though probably not enough to even make her reconsider.

One of the biggest problems with the ABC argument is that it appeals to the selfish nature of shortsighted young women. It's not about right or wrong, it's about the girl and some infintesimally small difference in risk to her breast health when she's 50. First off, she doesn't care. She just wants her baby dead. Secondly, even if you manage to scare her off the abortion track and save the baby, you haven't changed her mind about abortion. You've just lied to her and made her fearful.

This is just a desperate scare tactic, and it does a real disservice to our cause. We are in the right, and time and hard work will bear that out. We WILL win--but not by twisting the facts and sullying our trustworthiness.

[A. Pole]

If you can't understand the statistics you're using to make your point, it's best to stay out of the debate, IMHO. Read the studies carefully, with a critical eye instead of a hopeful one (for science is nothing if not critical). If you still can't understand it, here's an explanation in layman's terms:

I am an unmarried woman who has never been pregnant. I currently have

I am sorry, your personal situation does not equal a scientific study. Either way, you can trust the Planned Parenthood that they will not frighten you by the REAL scientific studies. You can find this introductory quote (which suggests the possible mechanism) and studies at: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer site

"Breast cells have been hypothesized to be the most susceptible to transformation into malignant cells when breast tissue contains primarily rapidly growing and undifferentiated epithelial cells – i.e., during adolescence and pregnancy. . . . Some investigators have hypothesized that the termination of pregnancy in the first two trimesters may alter the carcinogenic potential of breast tissue by interrupting the complete differentiation of breast cells that occurs during full-term pregnancy and confers protection." Phyllis A. Wingo (American Cancer Society) (1997).

[ELS]

That's one reason I posted (and continue to post from time to time) Brother Bernardine's "Four Classes of Women".

I have not forgotten that I owe you a reply on that thread. In fact, I think about it quite often. It seems I can't coalesce the ideas that I wish to express, let alone verbalize them.

A quick comment on the two young women you overheard on the levee: It appears that they, like I, have been suckered/brainwashed by the popular culture. I eventually came to my senses, but not before taking several missteps in my effort to "fit in" (as I thought I was the one who was wrong).

I'll leave it at that for now. Further discussion seems to me to be better suited to comfortable seating and appropriate refreshments. That will have to wait until you visit this neck of the woods or I return to your neighborhood.

[Askel5]

I'll leave it at that for now. Further discussion seems to me to be better suited to comfortable seating and appropriate refreshments. That will have to wait until you visit this neck of the woods or I return to your neighborhood.

I understand. I'm only comfortable using myself as example to a certain extent ... although no doubt I do lay it on the line in more intimate settings.

Looking forward to our next salon! Depending on how my finances go (I really wish to go to Turkey and Greece next summer), the St. Pat's gig might be a fall thing.

I'm long overdue for a trip to The City, however. Something will work out.

[FreeTally]

I am sorry, your personal situation does not equal a scientific study.

The example did not mean "her", its "any woman".

[FreeTally]

One of the biggest problems with the ABC argument is that it appeals to the selfish nature of shortsighted young women. It's not about right or wrong, it's about the girl and some infintesimally small difference in risk to her breast health when she's 50. First off, she doesn't care. She just wants her baby dead. Secondly, even if you manage to scare her off the abortion track and save the baby, you haven't changed her mind about abortion. You've just lied to her and made her fearful.

I've tried to tell them this before, but I just get berated and told that I do not know what I am talking about.

[lepton]

One of the biggest problems with the ABC argument is that it appeals to the selfish nature of shortsighted young women. It's not about right or wrong, it's about the girl and some infintesimally small difference in risk to her breast health when she's 50. First off, she doesn't care. She just wants her baby dead. Secondly, even if you manage to scare her off the abortion track and save the baby, you haven't changed her mind about abortion. You've just lied to her and made her fearful.

Though, it does knock a bit of a hole in the Pro-abortion argument that abortion is so much safer than having a baby - which is the baseline understanding by many.

[LibertyGirl77]

I am sorry, your personal situation does not equal a scientific study.

Did you even read my post? It was a hypothetical situation used as a tool to explain some statistics. There was nothing personal about it.

[LibertyGirl77]

"Hypothesized" does not mean the same thing as "concluded." A hypothesis is an educated guess. You can do a study to prove or disprove a hypothesis, but a hypothesis alone is worthless.

[A. Pole]

"Hypothesized" does not mean the same thing as "concluded." A hypothesis is an educated guess. You can do a study to prove or disprove a hypothesis, but a hypothesis alone is worthless.

You need to make a correction for a tremendous bias and pressure influencing scientists at present. When Stalin favored Lysenko if 1% of Soviet research was pointing the opposite direction it was more valuable than remaining 99%. Right now there much more studies pointing to the link than one could expect in the present political context.

The fact is that during pregnancy there is a rapid growth of specific breast cells and that it gets disrupted by abortion or miscarriage. The cancer is a uncontrolled distorted cell growth.

[#3Fan]

I support anyone who attacks our press. LOL

[The Shootist]

You argue that murder is against the law and that abortion is murder. Fine.

For most of our history murder was not a Federal Crime if committed within a states' jurisdiction. Murder was handled by the States, with the Navy and Army being a separate jurisdiction. Why was this so? Neither Congress nor the People believed that the US Constitution permitted the Federal Government to outlaw Murder within the jurisdiction of a state.

For the same reason the Federal Government did not (does not) have the Constitutional authority to mandate what a person can or cannot do with their own body.

Amendment Nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment Ten: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the Ruling Elite of this country were constrained by the 9th and 10th Amendments, barring an amendment, "the people" retain the god-given, not gov't granted, right of ownership of their bodies. Note: There is "still" no federal law against home schooling, gambling or prostitution, for the reasons mentioned above. (btw, this means, no FDA, no medication by prescription only, no federal drinking age, no gun registration, no affirmative action, no intergration, no federally mandated bussing, no Americans with Disabilities Act. . .)

However, there is no reason, other than an outta control SCOTUS and Congress, why individual states should not be able to outlaw abortion, as their citizens see fit.

Granted, both the liberals and conservatives have twisted the federal Constitution to suit their ends. While it is an axiom that the End ahould never justify the Means, Congress, the President and the People have allowed this destruction of our Ruling Document.

In one sense, those of you who oppose Abortion are just reaping what you, yourself, have sown, a nation where the people are ruled.

[Bryan]

Abortion was illegal for centuries under English common law and Justice Blackmun acknowledged that when he drafted Roe vs. Wade. It was a "great misprision" or great misdemeanor. Under modern statutes, a Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to 364 days in the county jail. English common law was well-known to the authors of the Bill of Rights, and they adopted it in its entirety as the basis of American law. I agree that Congress has vastly exceeded the powers that were granted by the Constitution. In particular, Congress should have nothing to do with education. But the states, like heroin addicts, are hooked on that federal money.