I'm really on the outskirts of this debate and wish it would have stayed on topic,...the question... does abortion increase the risk of breast cancer? The NYT seems to think not, pro-lifers and some in the medical commnity say yes.
I think it is very unfourtunate that you have decided to resort to name calling of pro-lifers, that is a tactic of the liberals, it is used to shut conservitives up, not conservitives to end discussion with other conservitives. I'm not saying that there isn't name calling on the opposing viewpoint, but you are taking it to the extreme with the mullah omar crap.
While I'm pro-life, I do not go around threatning women who have had abortions with hell fire. I view the abortion providers as an industry (taxpayer subsidized) that is driven by profit and nothing else. Once you come to terms with the fact that abortion is an industry and it's main focus making money and not helping desprate women out of a bad situation, then you can begin to see the movement in it's proper prespective. My feeling is that someday it will be completly outlawed and people will wonder why it was allowed in the first place.But like slavery, it took 350 years, a huge war, and an amendment to the blasted constitution to end.
My opinion, like yours and everyone elses, is a nice thing to have, but if an opinion is based on false information or a lie, it is a bad opinion. The truth is the truth, no matter what opinion we have. I have second hand experience with abortion, I can tell you that it dramatically changes a womens ability to have the normal relationship (in marrage) that would otherwise be expected. This is the truth, and nobodys opinion is going to change that. If you get nothing else out of my little message, please get this, the issue about the increase risk of breast cancer is one of many negatives that the abortion industry sweeps under the rug and does not want to tell women before they have the procedure. It would be bad for buisness if they were honest and would open the industry up to legal liability if they did. The cigarette companies are being sued because they are said to know the risks of smoking and cover it up, in same fashon, the abortion industry know the risks (physical, medical, and emotional) and are pretending not to know, but the day will come when the trial lawyers will get on this gravey train and that will be the end of this experiment in convenience. Of course, if I'm correct, then the irony of my prediction would be that the abortion industries downfall will not come from the pro-life movement, but from within the court room.
If you were to take a little time and study the abolitionist movement in the 19th century, you will, over time, see the parallels between the modern pro-life movement and the abolitionist movement. Further study will reveal to you the political and economic heritage of both slavery and modern day abortion. Before you go crazy, think about this, slavery then, like abortion now was legal when it was practiced and had the protection of the law. There were many people in this country on the eve of the civil war that did not think fighting a war to end slavery was was a good thing to do.
You may find it interesting to read Abraham Lincon's famous speach to the NY coopers union. Read it with an open mind, substitute abortion with slavery and then re-evaluate your desire to be a conservitive and or a republican.My opinion, for what is worth (maybe nothing) is that conservitives are consistent in there views and liberals views are dependent on the convenience of the moment. That is how liberals claim constitutional protection of the right to choose (when there is no such constitutional guarantee)and for the most part embrace gun control in spite of the second amendment guarantee to keep and bear arms. I think you will find that pro choice people are that way for emotional reasons and there is little chance that facts such as medical negatives are going to change their views at this time in history.
Tom
As sad as it is to say as a Broken Glass Republican, I don't trust most "Pro-Lifers" anymore than I do the New York Times (Which is OBVIOUSLY biased in their "Reporting" here).
And I don't trust the pro-lifers on this thread at all. They've put on a display here that qualifies them as "Fringe". And I'm being kind with calling them that.