Replies

Would you then, oh expert, care to explain WHY women died from breast cancer ( no , it was NOT a RARE hapenstance for women to get / die from breast cancer millenia ago ) BEFORE abortions were legal, BEFORE estrogen was in whatever you think it's now in , and what of women who have NEVER had an abortion Also, just in case you don't know, men ca anddo get breast cacer; it's just something that isn't talked about very much.

Oh, and before you start assuming that am advocating abortion, please don't. am NOT doing any such thing !

I truly don't believe the statistics of breast cancer and, all cancers for that matter, decades ago compare to what we experience today ... and most especially in gals in their 20's and 30's. And the incidents of childhood cancers have exploded in the last decade. It is so sad ... and I'm not being combative ... wonder why you are.

For one thing, the chemical invasion into our culture just didn't exist decades ago .. they've created hundreds of thousands of powerful chemicals in the last 15-20 years .. synthetic everything that the body wasn't designed to handle. Engineered foods weren't around decades ago. Cows weren't pumped full of steroids and hormones to fatten them up for market decades ago.

Many fat-free and low calorie products have been so dried by the removal of standard oils and fats that they add a petroleum chemical humectant, same thing that's in lotions and skin moisturizers. You'll find it, among other things, in some brands of canned frosting and fat-free sour cream.

Ask parents of teenage children how much quicker this generation is maturing compared to theirs ... little girls of 10 and 11 are starting their periods and growing breasts even younger. There's plenty of information readily available if you're truly interested.

By the way, the reason I've learned so much about this subject over my lifetime is that I lost my Dear Dad to cancer when I was 16 .. he was 42. The suffering he endured was devastating, as was the devastation in my life and my family's.

He worked like a dog at a very stressful job, got chronic stomach ulcers, and unfortunately he liked his alcohol, which is can be a carcinogen when overused by ulcer patients.

I had a bi-lateral mastectomy last year after repeated scares with lumps ,along with one REAL instance of breast cancer. My mother died from breast cancer. I have lost aunts to it. My uncle had one breast removed as a result of breast cancer.NOT ONE of the afore mentioned had an abortion.I think that theory is total garbage.I am 1000% pro life.But cannot buy the abortion theory that you are predisposed to cancer if you have had one. Rather I am insulted by that.

I believe that the operative phrase here is "significantly increased risk". The link between abortion and breast cancer cannot exclude other carcinogens or agents, including genetics, any more than all lung cancer can be blamed on tobacco smoke, or the statement made that all smokers will get cancer.

In assessing risk, theoretically, common factors are sought between persons exhibiting a condition, then research done to find how those common factors may (or may not) impact risk.

If there exists a significant number of women who have had abortions, and those abortions caused an unnatural change in stem cell biochemistry, with biochemical differences between miscarriages and induced abortions, and that change in biochemistry can be linked to tumor development, then causality may be established.

There is no guarantee that having an abortion will cause cancer, any more than that not having an abortion will guarantee that a woman will not contract breast cancer, only the indication that the cell changes brought about by induced alterations of biochemistry (via abortion) increase the risk of contracting breast cancer.

If other risk factors are present as well, this only serves as an indicator of probability in a large population that any individual will be more likely (than someone who does not have these risk factors) to contract the disease.

Where this type of assesment becomes scary, aside from the potential for bogus, agenda driven research and enriching trial lawyers, is when you seek insurance and your medical records (and previous generation's medical records) are there on the computer for all to see. Even with (especially with?)socialized medicine, you become a bad medical investment, and do not receive coverage or care.

In this case, however, the agenda bias is against finding a link, socially, medically, in liability terms, and from the research folks who find aborted babies a convenient source of stem cells and other tissue on which to conduct research.