[krodriguesdc]

WOW - this says it all...

[Malesherbes]

It will be interesting to see how the American media spin this. My guess is that they will simply ignore it.

[syriacus]

the total number of breast cancer cases is expected to more than double from 35,110 in 1997 to 77,000 in 2023. The rise is "largely" because of abortions carried out on women who have not yet had a baby, he said.

Does this mean that legalized abortion kills more women than back-alley abortions did?

When the insurance companies think this over, will they decide to ask women if they have had an abortion and then consider them a greater insurance risk if they have had one? (Like they ask people if they smoke cigarettes so they can determine if they are a greater risk).

[Quila]

Can we have a link to the original study?

"...funded by the anti-abortion charity Life" pretty much told us what the results would be before the study started, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if I could read the study.

[abigail2]

I think if studies were done, they would find that suicide, child abuse and all sorts of horrors can be linked to abortion.

[syriacus]

Launching the study - which was funded by the anti-abortion charity Life - Professor Joel Brind, of New York’s City University and director of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in New York, said: "Women are at risk and they do not really know about it."

Here's what Dr. Joel Brind says

http://www.abortioncancer.com/

Just over three years ago, I found myself negotiating with an editorial page editor of a newspaper out west. The paper had just published a debate column on the abortion-breast cancer issue, wherein one side cited yours truly by name as the main source of fact, and the other side cited me as the main source of fiction!

At one point during the arduous process of bargaining the editor up from a 150 to a 600 word response they would publish, she told me "If you don’t like our policy you can start your own newspaper."

Finally, in October 1996, I and colleagues from the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey published a "Comprehensive Review and Meta-analysis" on ABC in the British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health1. Our finding of significantly increased risk in the totality of worldwide medical literature garnered headlines, but only momentarily. And the main-stream organs of public health policy and the media have wasted no time in using their power and prestige to bury the truth about the single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer: induced abortion.

Therefore I offer to all of you who really care about women’s lives and women’s health, the ABC Quarterly Update, your source for life-saving knowledge in a life-threatening world.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

New research by MORI’s Social Research Institute shows that 65 per cent of people agree that if a woman wants an abortion she should not have to continue with her pregnancy

How about if the remaining 35% don't have to pay for the cancer treatment in their system of socialized medicine?

I read somewhere that in Russia, women have on average 5 abortions in their life. Wonder what the cancer rates must be there?

[WIMom]

Let's make this the shortest fundraiser ever.
5 days into the fundraiser and we are 62% there.
We can be finished in 3 more days
and get back to our regular freeping.
If you can, come on and contribute
to the best web site on the internet.
Or stop by and help bump the thread!

---

Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 6

---

Click on the FreeRepublic eagle for secure credit card donations,

or Snail Mail:
FREE REPUBLIC, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[aruanan]

WOMEN who have had an abortion are nearly twice as likely to suffer from breast cancer, scientists claimed yesterday.

This was not a study. It was an exercise in statistical cherry picking amongst other previous studies. Previous studies have not shown an unambiguous risk that was much higher than background noise. Some people who are either ignorant about statistics in epidemiology (or who are dishonestly representing them) misrepresent figures of relative risk. A less than one hundred percent increase in relative risk does not mean that nearly twice as many women will develop breast cancer. Relative risk doesn't work this way. In epidemiology, you have to have a relative risk greater than 3 to even be entering a region of unambiguous correlation between one thing and another. In this instance the level of relative risk is a fraction of that which is considered to be merely background noise. Doubling this means only slightly less murky results that are nearly indistinguishable from background noise. If a slight chance that a very small number of the total number of breast cancers is doubled, this doesn't mean that the total number of breast cancers will be doubled. The most it could mean is that that very small number of the total could maybe, perhaps, be increased.

Things that most dramatically reduce (aside from not being genetically predisposed) a woman's risk of breast cancer are 1. having children and 2. breast feeding. They both reduce risk because the woman goes through a smaller total number of fertility cycles in her lifetime. Anything that increases this number, not breast feeding, breast feeding less, having fewer children by aborting one or just having one less or having none at all, will increase a woman's risk of breast cancer. There has been, though, NO indication that abortion introduces a separate risk factor that is intrinsic to abortion itself that is responsible for this slight increase in relative risk. For those of you out there, and you know who you are, who are dishonest enough to claim that my saying this is equivalent to approving abortion--you have already aborted your ability to reason honestly and are merely engaged in sloganeering and propaganda. In the end this will only hurt the pro-life cause.

[tired&retired]

First let me say that I am pro life.

But bad research is bad research. I would expect to see an article like this in Star or Globe magazine. No group of statisticians would present information like this.. At best, what they have is a correlation between abortions and breast cancer. It is impossible to randomly assign women to groups and designate them to have an abortion, or to not have an abortion and be a part of a control group.

Second, the confounding effect is obvious. Type A personalities tend to be professional women, are subject to much more stress than the average woman, and are also much more likely to have an abortion due to their careers. I would expect a correlation. I would also expect a correlation with cancer, heart disease ,smoking and ......

There may be a cause and effect relationship, but poor science is poor science.

[Grig]

I would not be surprised if there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer, but it sounds like all this study did was notice that they both went up at the same time, and that alone doesn't justify any conclusion. The Dow went up a lot when Clinton was in office, but he sure didn't cause it to happen now did he.

Now if they tracked the breast cancer rate of a large group of randomly chosen women who had an abortion and compared it to a large group of randomly chosen women who did not, THEN you can start to say there is a sign of a link.

It hurts our credibility if we rush to embrace a poorly done study just because it draws the conclusion we want.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

This story came out years ago in the USA. NOW and others said it was a false study. I don't have a link handy, but it's been out there.

[SpookBrat]

Thank you for your link. Regardless of whether this is objective science or not, I think most of us can agree abortion is not a "healthy" choice. It can have serious ramifications on a woman’s body and mind. I don't think the female body was built to withstand so much "play" with her hormones. Perhaps it's not abortion that causes a higher risk of breast cancer. Perhaps it is various birth control medications that could increase the risk and maybe women who receive abortions are more likely to stay on BC for a longer period of time. It could be a psychosomatic punishment of sexual organs from guilt. It could be anything really. There are all sorts of factors to consider. Who knows! More science will come, I'm sure. I'll give it time. Considering legal abortion has only been for (almost) 30 years, I’m afraid it will be a long time before we completely understand the aftereffects, if we ever will at all.

[concerned about politics]

Abortion studies link abortion and breast cancer over and over.
A 7 year study by the World Health Organization of second hand cigarette smoke showed nothing. Nada!
Yet laws are written to prohibit second hand smoke, while the real killer walks free.
That's Marxism for you. Fake laws to rule the unwashed masses.

[concerned about politics]

It's only right for those who kill their unborn to suffer a similar fate by the hand of GOD. I don't feel sorry for them at all.
I believe the studies, and Clinton used the monies from the military to fund breast cancer research. Abortion and sex fetishes are a left wing hobby.

[tired&retired]

As I recall, there is a link between women who have not had any children and breast cancer. If they have not had any children due to abortions, then I would expect a link.

Abortions would be as much a cause as having no sex. Or using birth control!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

FYI

[KQQL]

Abortion is bad for women's health and fatal for the fetus, but out lawing abortion will never work.
Abortions will always be legal.

The best way to slow down the abortion rate is to educate people and change their hearts and mind.