Abortion and Breast Cancer

New York Times ^ | 1/6/3

[dead]

The National Cancer Institute has been bullied by Congressional conservatives into revising its best judgment on whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Unless the institute can summon the courage to express its true views, it will be severely damaged.

Researchers have long debated whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, possibly by altering hormones and tissue development in the breast. A fact sheet distributed by the institute last March noted that studies conducted before the mid-1990's produced inconsistent results but that subsequent studies generally found no association between abortion and breast cancer. The American Cancer Society reached the same conclusion.

Those judgments were anathema to anti-abortion groups, which have been trying to scare women away from abortion by raising the specter of breast cancer. A group of 28 anti-abortion members of Congress complained to Tommy Thompson, secretary of health and human services, that the institute's formulation was "scientifically inaccurate and misleading." So in June, the institute removed the fact sheet from its Web site and later replaced it with a statement that some studies have found an increased risk of cancer while others have not. 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.

The institute plans to address the issue at a conference on pregnancy and breast cancer in February. If the experts at the meeting agree that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer, the institute will have no excuse to suppress the information. It will have to issue a new fact sheet or admit it can no longer provide objective guidance on matters that inflame social conservatives.

[babygene]

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

What you said is worse than what he said...

[Hildy]

Isn't that Christian of you. I had an abortion when I was 20. Do I regret it? To be honest, I don't really know. Would you like to see me die a slow, painful death now?

[Desdemona]

The scariest thing about the NYT in all this is the gatekeeper role they like to play.

"All the news that fit to print." Riiiggghhht.

[bimbo]

... matters that inflame social conservatives.

Wait a minute - the social "progressives" are the ones who are incensed by the neat correlation between the rise of abortions and the rise of breast cancer. I'm not going to posit a post hoc - propter hoc argument by saying that abortion causes breast cancer; I'm only saying that in 1995, the numbers of breasts cancers (and cervical cancers) and the numbers of abortions had risen at nearly identical rates since 1973.

[APBaer]

"Only that APBaer was putting words in his mouth that he didn't say and probably didn't mean."

Your trying to construe away what he clearly said,
is like putting lipstick on a pig.

[BlackElk]

And you are a Christian for wanting innocent babies sliced, diced and mangled into bleeding hamburger?????? 2Tmothy3:16 does not need to be a PC marshmallow or wimp to be a Christian. Can you spell Moloch?

[APBaer]

He's the one trumpeting the label of "Christian."
His behavior in wishing people to die lingetring deaths from cancer is not something normally thought of as "Christian"

As to my spelling, though I do not know how to spell that word you asked about, I do know how to spell as*hole:
B-l-a-c-k-E-l-K

[BlackElk]

Presumably, even those bent on killing their own children would be a bit more reluctant if the consequence were death by breast cancer. If male promiscuity were to have a high correlation to cancer of the penis, a fair number of men would feel somewhat more inclined to keep their equipment where it belongs. There are also studies linking female promiscuity to cervical cancer. I am going out on a limb here and imagining that AIDS is often related to anal adventuring.

Whether anyone wishes these things to be true or not is of no consequence. What matters is whether anyu of these theories IS objectively true. If so, or if not, those performing the studies ought to be encouraged to tell the honest truth to the public. If the actual, unrevised, study results serve my political agendas, so be it. If they do not serve my political agenda, so be it.

In saying of a link between breast cancer and abortion "God willing it will be", the Christian's compassion may well be exercised in favor of the innocent baby and against the guilty mother. If the link is objectively true, the mother has a right to know that without the interference of political smog so that she may decide whether she wishes to risk her own death by breast cancer as a price for arranging the butchering of her child for the sin of being inconvenient to her social or economic plans or social status. None of this is fair since the father is free of much of the social pressure, but the baby is a human life and that trumps any rights of the parent(s) other than the life of the mother, narrowly construed.

[babygene]

"Your trying to construe away what he clearly said,
is like putting lipstick on a pig."

If research did prove there was a link between breast cancer and abortion, wouldn't that be a good thing?

I would submit that it would. Not because these women would be more at risk. Quite the contrary... Finding a preventable cause for breast cancer would save millions of women from suffering from this terrible diease.

[BlackElk]

And, since the essence of your post is to defend the slicing and dicing of innocent babies, would you also wish that fate upon you and those you love?

[BlackElk]

No one wants to see you die a slow, painful death. No one ought to have wanted your baby sliced, diced and rendered into hamburger either. If you do not regret (repent) that abortion, you have a long way to go and cancer may be the least of your worries. Death comes for us all at some point between conception and old age, varying greatly by individual case. Eternity also comes for us all sooner or later. The preparation each of us makes for eternity is more important than any transitory and temporary concern.

[BlackElk]

I take it that you can develop that argument more fully? Moloch is the pagan god to whom some Jews offered their fisrt born children to be burned up in a fire while alive in the belly of the idol. See the Book of Jeremiah. It's in all the Bibles. The consequence was the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews and the sack of the temple.

As you favor the slicing, dicing and hamburgerization of innocent babies, you are offering advice to others as to what constitutes Christianity?????????

[BlackElk]

Are you really looking for a pissing contest with the antlered?

Are the last five words of your post the key to how you fell in love with the slaughter of the innocent?

[APBaer]

"As you favor the slicing, dicing and hamburgerization of innocent babies"

So I might respond, could you please point me to my post on this subject?

[shhrubbery!]

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.

I disagree. Women who claim this remind me of those "good" Germans, who under the Nazi regime claimed they "didn't know."

While I don't wish cancer upon anyone (except, say, Saddam Hussein and all members of Al Qaida), I do believe most women DO know "the full reality of the child, and how horrible abortion is."

[BlackElk]

You have posted your support of abortion or the euphemistic "right to choose" (choose what? Wh, abortion, of course. No one needed the permission of the SCOTUS to bear a child) on other threads.

In attacking 2Timothy3:16, you are apparently attacking a pro-lifer and, as others have also pointed out, innacurately attacked a pro-lifer at that. In doing so you give support to abortion and hence to the slicing, dicing, and hamburgerization of the innocent.

The dismemberment of living children is one of those black and white issues on which there can be no middle ground now or ever.

[Hildy]

You tell me what I'm supposed to do to "repent?" Am I supposed to cry and mourn the baby? You tell me what would be "good enough" for you. Would it be good enough for you if I stood in front of legal abortion clinics and told the women going in there that they will burn in hell? Should I tell them that they should only pray for Cancer because it's the best they can hope for because their souls are so damaged? I said I don't know how I feel about what I did at that time in my life. I would not do it now. It was legal and I did it. I think your views as expressed on this thread are ridiculous. I believe we are the sum of all our actions, especially the ones that have to do with the way we treat the living. Why don't you think about that.

[APBaer]

"In attacking 2Timothy3:16, you are apparently attacking a pro-lifer"

That's true. But I did not attack him *because" he was a "pro-lifer" but because what he posted was:
1 ghoulish
2. hypocritical seeing as how he identified himself as Christian, yet was behaving in what appears to me an Unchristian manner.

On another matter, I appologize for the name calling of you, Oh antlered one.

[Remedy]

It should be intuitive for all women. Pro-choice propaganda can be very persuasive to some.

Women who claim this remind me of those "good" Germans, who under the Nazi regime claimed they "didn't know."

Between Two Holocausts A number of years ago, I took a college course in contemporary Jewish history, and the course content obviously included a Holocaust retrospective. The two questions every person in that class asked at the end of the term are the same two questions that all distraught Jews have been asking since the end of World War II: 1) How can a civilized, intellectual and educated society of people, made up of individuals presumably with consciences and souls just like everyone else, choose to systematically target and eliminate another group of individuals in cold blood, without mercy or a second thought?...

I do believe most women DO know "the full reality of the child, and how horrible abortion is."

• Is Abortion Murder?
• State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims

[realpatriot71]

I'm no supporter or aborton, but you guys are going to have to let this go. If the incidence of breast cancer in women who have had abortions is higher than in those women who have not had an abortion, this would be very easily demonstratable statistically.