Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion and Breast Cancer
New York Times ^ | 1/6/3

Posted on 01/06/2003 8:36:25 AM PST by dead

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

1 posted on 01/06/2003 8:36:25 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Polycarp
ping
2 posted on 01/06/2003 8:37:48 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
bump
3 posted on 01/06/2003 8:41:20 AM PST by krodriguesdc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Hmm, I detect more emotion than should be necessary for reporting the news.
4 posted on 01/06/2003 8:42:37 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
But, if it were true, and God willing it will be, would it not be poetic justice that the woman who subjects her baby to the slow horrible death by being eaten up alive by a strong saline solution, now suffers the same thing, death by the slow horrible means of being eaten up alive.
5 posted on 01/06/2003 8:45:51 AM PST by 2timothy3.16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
a statement that some studies have found an increased risk of cancer while others have not. That statement, while technically accurate

does nothing to advance the “women’s rights” cause of sucking babies out of wombs.

The statement is accurate, and that enrages the Times.

6 posted on 01/06/2003 8:47:36 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dead
"That statement, while technically accurate, is such an egregious distortion of the evidence that one can only hope it is an interim statement, as some staff members suggest, not a final surrender."

Somehow I don't get how something that is technically accurate, is an egregious distortion of anything...

7 posted on 01/06/2003 8:49:12 AM PST by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
and that enrages the Times. hehehehehe!
8 posted on 01/06/2003 8:49:22 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2timothy3.16
"if it were true, and God willing it will be"

You, Sir or Madam are an unchristian pr*ck for wishing someone dies of cancer.

9 posted on 01/06/2003 8:49:59 AM PST by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dead
Best Reference Book on Abortion Complications Updated and ...Detrimental Effects of Abortion: An Annotated Bibliography with Commentary (3rd Edition). This expanded and newly updated edition is the most complete summary available of statistically significant studies on abortion. Compiled by attorney and post-abortion expert Thomas W. Strahan.

Elliot Institute director, David C. Reardon, Ph.D., one of the nation's leading experts on post-abortion issues is asking pro-life advocates around the country to donate copies of Detrimental Effects of Abortion to their local public, high school, and university libraries.

Though Reardon works full time on post-abortion research, he says Strahan's earlier bibliographies have always been his first reference source whenever he begins a new research project.

"Tom Strahan has performed a great service in tracking down all the best studies and organizing their finding in a way that is easily accessible to the average reader," Dr. Reardon said. "Without it, the task of searching for this material on the Internet or in a reference library would be overwhelming. Many of the best studies are simply not indexed under the keywords you would normally expect to find abortion complications."

Strahan edits The Research Bulletin for the Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change and has written numerous articles on abortion. He hopes this revised and expanded reference book will help people to better understand the range of risks associated with abortion.

"Most people think that because abortion is legal, it's safe for women, period," Strahan said. "They think that as long as the government says it's okay, then it must be good for our society. They don't realize that many researchers and scholars studying this issue have found that just the opposite is true."

The Effects of Abortion Including Known Complications.

10 posted on 01/06/2003 8:54:19 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
" for wishing someone dies of cancer"

I read #5, I don't think he/she said that...
11 posted on 01/06/2003 8:55:46 AM PST by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: babygene
"I read #5, I don't think he/she said that..."

Read again please:
"if it were true, and God willing it will be"
12 posted on 01/06/2003 8:58:52 AM PST by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2timothy3.16

But, if it were true, and God willing it will be, would it not be poetic justice that the woman who subjects her baby to the slow horrible death by being eaten up alive by a strong saline solution, now suffers the same thing, death by the slow horrible means of being eaten up alive.

Moral Question of Abortion

They are often pressured; they turn to abortion because they are not supported and see no alternative. Far from being a genuine choice, abortion is often an act of desperation. Women are often devastated in many ways, by feelings of guilt, regret, depression, and by physical damage. Abortion is a terrible assault on the woman, psychologically and physically. One might easily say they have suffered enough. Moreover, women are often unaware of the full reality of the child, and how horrible abortion is for the child.

13 posted on 01/06/2003 9:00:04 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: babygene
I guess you are "technically accurate," since what he/she actually thinks would be justice is for God to subject the woman not simply to dying of cancer, but to suffering "death by the slow horrible means of being eaten up alive."
14 posted on 01/06/2003 9:05:02 AM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: babygene; APBaer
I read it the same way as APbear. The poster hopes it is true that abortion may lead to breast cancer. Seems pretty sick and unchristian to me as well.
15 posted on 01/06/2003 9:05:13 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dead

and that enrages the Times

The Times According to William Proctor About the Author
Bill Proctor is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has worked as a reporter for the New York Daily News. He has written or co-authored more than 70 nonfiction books, including several national bestsellers.

William Proctor '66 recognizes the New York Times's preeminence as the country's newspaper of record. That's why he reads it every morning, and why he's written a book lambasting it.

He is, on the other hand, adamantly opposed to abortion. He questioned how, with regard to the animal rights movement, the paper can be "moving towards giving animals a certain degree of personhood that they wouldn't accord to a fetus two minutes before birth."

16 posted on 01/06/2003 9:08:38 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
"...You, Sir or Madam are an unchristian pr*ck for wishing someone dies of cancer..."

Noting an irony, a 'poetic justice' in this case, isn't the same thing as "wishing someone dies of cancer".

Now, if Tim had said, "I wish that the mudering b!tches would die of cancer" I'd have to agree that some 'wishin' was uh goin' on dere'...

17 posted on 01/06/2003 9:13:19 AM PST by DWSUWF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2timothy3.16
But, if it were true, and God willing it will be

You are a DISGUTING human being!! How DARE YOU wish cancer apon ANYONE????? I can ONLY assume you haven't known anyone who has died from this horrible disease.

I hope for only ONE thing for you...That ANYTHING you wish apon others happens to you and anyone you know or love.

You IDIOT!

18 posted on 01/06/2003 9:30:19 AM PST by Johnny Shear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally; drjimmy; APBaer
Tim needs to speak for himself... I wasn't agreeing with what he said or condoning it. Only that APBaer was putting words in his mouth that he didn't say and probably didn't mean.

I can only guess, but I would surmise that Tim would prefer that no one have an abortion, hence no one would get breast cancer.

19 posted on 01/06/2003 9:32:14 AM PST by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
the institute will have no excuse to suppress the information.

The only thing that is being suppressed is the preponderance of studies linking abortion and breast cancer. (even some by abortion advocates) Is there any other potential health threat that the New York Times is willing to so casually dismiss? For example, the danger of second hand tobacco smoke is far more disputable than the health risks of abortions.

The New York Times has made getting women into the Masters golf tournament its centerpiece. Which issue is going to effect the lives of more woman, whether they can become member of a golf club in Georgia or whether a procedure performed on over a million women a year may raise their risk for cancer?

20 posted on 01/06/2003 9:36:12 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson