Posted on 05/28/2002 7:10:25 AM PDT by TroutStalker
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
DENVER -- As soon as he saw the blue minivan turning into the parking lot of Planned Parenthood's small abortion clinic here, Kenneth Scott grabbed his digital camera, clambered up his rickety metal ladder and started snapping pictures.
"You'll have nightmares about this day the rest of your life," he bellowed, photographing the blond woman gingerly leaving the minivan. Then he turned his camera to her escort. "Your sin won't be hidden or forgotten," he screamed.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Whoever commits sin is the slave of sin. The unforgiven sinner bears a huge burden of guilt that manifests itself in many ways. The guilt can be supressed for decades but like a cork in water it tends to pop to the surface. Talk to any mother whose conscience has been convicted about this sin.
Cordially,
Oh, come-on Triple three.... some cells clump up. Can't you read? It's like a cancer.
Mr. Vice President,
I watched your performance on Meet the Press this past Sunday, and I was still a little unsure of your position on when life begins. Do you believe life begins at conception, and if not, when do you believe life begins?
Betty in Seattle
Thank your for the question. At my town hall meeting in Michigan, did you see that ironworker with the small cap who—Wasn’t he great? Anyway, do I believe life begins at conception? Yes and no. While I believe that some life form begins at conception I do not believe that human life begins at conception. I believe that the Roe vs. Wade decision wisely embodies the kind of common sense judgment that most Americans share, and that's why I believe there is a difference between an unborn baby at 1, 2 and 3 months old and one that is older. At that age they are more like reptiles and look a lot like lizards. Once they get to be 4 months or so in the womb they really start to look like little people. It's amazing really. One day you're walking around with a lizard in your belly and the next day it's a baby. The Supreme Court works in mysterious ways.
So the test for me is, does the baby look like a lizard. If so, then abortion is justified because it is not really the taking of a human life. If the unborn baby is older and has begun to look somewhat human, then I believe abortion is still justified but at that stage it is arguably the taking of a human life. I mean, that’s the way the Supreme Court has addressed it. And incidentally, it was just reaffirmed by a narrow one-vote margin, 5-to-4. The justices chosen by the president elected this November will determine whether or not a woman’s right to abort the lizards in her belly is protected or taken away. I will protect a woman’s right to rid herself of unwanted lizards. Governor Bush has sworn to take away that right. And people think I'm an environmentalist wacko. At least I'm not proposing constitutional protection for reptiles.
Sincerely,
Al Gore
It doesn't matter how many studies you have with the recall bias error -- they are all flawed unless they tried to eliminate it. The Denmark study avoided recall bias by not relying on interviews with healthy women who would tend to underreport their abortion history (why mention it, they are healthy.) Women with breast cancer, however, are much more forthcoming with their abortion history. So you get a recall bias. Unless the study accounts for that, it is fatally flawed.
The Danish study, from what I can tell, didn't interview any women past their late-40s, when lots of breast cancers appear for the first time.
But enough of translation: at the risk of bugging JimRob and using bandwidth, here's the entire piece on the desire to minimize the impact of the developing scientific support for the abortion-breast cancer link. You can't claim, as you did in Post #37 that "There is no link between abortion and breast cancer" as if it's a settled matter, unless you're either ignorant or deliberately being intellectually dishonest.
+++++++++++++
Abortion-Breast Cancer Decision Was Judicial Bias on All Counts
by Frank Joseph, MD
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Dr. Frank Joseph is a physician practicing in California.]
Judge Michael McGuire ruled in favor of a North Dakota abortion facility that distributes information stating there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.
Who did the judge rely on for his decision? None other than the NCI (National CancerInstitute) and the ACS (American Cancer Society). Of course, if one is going to depend on these institutions for the truth, then why even havea trial? The outcome is a forgone conclusion. These two organization have been hiding the truth -- that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer -- for years.
This was the whole idea of a trial -- to get the truth out. To weigh all the evidence.
Let's examine the evidence: On the website of the NCI's web page discussing the topic, under the heading, "Cancer fact," they say, "The current body of scientific evidence suggests that women whohave had either induced or spontaneous abortions have the same risk as other women for developing breast cancer."
Their first lie appears in the very first paragraph. Contrary to what they say, the bulk of the studies show that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer. They also included spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) with induced (surgical) abortions. They should know better. Most studies show that spontaneous abortions, do not increase the risk of breast cancer, because of the low estrogen level.
The date of this new "Cancer fact" is March 6, 2002. How's that for timing?
Just in time for the North Dakota judge to read it at the start of the trial on March 25, 2002. In the same paragraph they say, "Some investigators reported an increase in risk, typically from interview studies of several hundred breast cancer patients compared to other women. Other studies found no evidence of increased risk."
They cite 7 studies for references. Wouldn't it have been more honest to have cited the references for the 28 studies that do show that abortions increase the risk for breast cancer? Sixteen are both statistically significant and report increased risk. Only 1 study reporting no increased risk is statistically significant.
In civil litigation, it is "the preponderance of evidence" that rules. It is apparent that the rules have been changed to accommodate the abortion industry. It is inconceivable that the judge, or anyone else could arrive at the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence favored the abortion clinic. Is this some kind of a new math being taught in our schools? I still think that 16 is greater than 1.
This decision is so outrageous and will lead to the death of thousands of women every year, because of the sheer numbers of abortions being done.
In just the first paragraph alone, in the NCI fact sheet, there were two lies. There are more, but space being a factor, I must continue. I always thought that in a court of law, that if you lie in one matter, you are anathema. You have lost all credibility.
Thirteen of 15 studies, which found that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer, were done right here in the United States. Just what does the NCI have against scientists from the United States? They looked high and low for a study that matched their political views and lo and behold they found just what they wanted in little Denmark. This, the Melbye/Danish study, which claimed the risk was inconclusive, was the only study included on their web page.
This study was so full of holes that reputable medical journals are reluctant to run it any more, without some kind of a disclaimer. Dr. Joel Brind the author of the only comprehensive review and meta-analysis of scientific studies concerning the link between induced abortion and breast cancer risk exposed the many flaws in it. When the flaws were removed, the study did show that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer. When he shredded the Danish study to pieces, he pointed out the specific flaws. He showed where the math did not add up. He showed what was left out.
When the NCI and the ACS attack a study showing an increased risk, the reason is general -- "the study was inconclusive." They don't point out why it's inconclusive or identify what doesn't add up, other than to say that some women may not recall if they had an abortion. They even coined a phrase for it -- "recall bias." As if a woman can forget if she had an abortion. This, they will remember the rest of their lives.
To show you where the allegiance of the NCI lies, the following should provide anyone with a clear mind and free of politics, that the NCI has indeed, bent over backwards to accommodate the abortion Industry:
The NCI funded a study conducted by Dr. Janet Daling and her colleagues at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which the agency now probably regrets. This study found that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer, yet the NCI did not include it on its website. It was not what the agency wanted to hear. Daling is pro-choice. The NCI could not attack it by saying it was done by someone, who is pro-life. What better way than to just sweep it under the rug? This blatant deception by the NCI which exists to warn the public about cancer risks is downright criminal.
The size of the Daling study is worth noting (1,806 women -- 845 women who had breast cancer were compared with a "control" group of 961 women who did not). I mention this because the NCI stated that most of the studies that were done, which showed the increased risk, were small and involved only several hundred women.
Daling et. al. concluded that a spontaneous abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. This put the emphasis back where it belongs: on induced abortion.
The study showed that on the average, the chance of a woman having breast cancer before she turns 45 increases by 50 percent if she has had an abortion. But, the Daling study contained even more frightening results, which were ignored by the judge.
If a woman had obtained her first abortion after age 30, her risk jumped by 110 percent. If she had her first abortion before she turned 18, the likelihood of having breast cancer increased by 150 percent.
Worse yet, if she has a family history (mother, sister, aunt) of breast cancer and had a first abortion after age 30, her risk went up by 270 percent.
Most ominous of all were the results for women who had had an abortion before age 18 and who also had a family history of breast cancer. Twelve women in the Daling study fit that description. Every one of them got breast cancer! [Daling et al. Journal of the National Cancer Institute (1994) 86:1584-92]
It is a matter of fact that the NCI, the ACS and all reputable medical professionals readily admit that a delayed first full term birth, increases the risk of breast cancer.
Does not an abortion delay a full term delivery? Of course. Do women and teens know when they're going to get pregnant again? Of course not. It could be 1 year, or 20 years, that is, if she was not made sterile by the abortion. According to a study at Harvard, every one year delay, before a full term delivery, increases the risk of breast cancer by 3.5 percent, compounded.
As stated above, if she's under 18 and there is a history of breast cancer in the family, every girl in the study got breast cancer. And yet the judge ignored this. How could this happen?
Even if the judge was biased, which he was, he -- being a man of some compassion, I hope -- could have easily said, "You must warn any woman under 18 of this risk if she is contemplating an abortion before the completion of a first full term pregnancy. If there is a history of breast cancer in the family, you should tell her to avoid an abortion at all cost."
This would have been the civilized thing to do if he was in doubt, and surely 28 studies to 7 studies against his decision, would have put even the most biased judge in doubt.
But no -- this would panic the abortion industry and place their death knell in plain sight. Better to let women die, than do anything to harm the abortion industry.
Besides the abortion-breast cancer risk, the attorneys for the plaintiffs should have included the risk of premature children in subsequent pregnancies. These low birth weight babies are much more prone to develop physical and mental problems including cerebral palsy. Since the Roe vs. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973, pre-term children have skyrocketed, because of the damage done to the cervix and the inner lining of the uterus during an abortion.
Abortion clinics advertise that abortions are safer than childbirth. There just aren't any words to convey the ridiculousness of this statement. We live in a society that has no respect for human life, and Judge McGuire has just signed the death warrants for thousands of young and older women every year, who have abortions.
Daling's study, however, only followed women into their forties. What about later in life? A vastly underreported study in the December 1993 issue of the Journal of the National Medical Association traced the breast cancer experience of about 1,000 black women (500 with breast cancer, 500 without) as they grew older. "Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African-American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience" confirmed that the risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted than for those who had not. [Laing, et al. 85:931-9]
This fine study found the same overall 50 percent increased risk factor for women under 40 who had aborted. But black women now in their 40s who had aborted experienced a 180 percent increased risk. The risk jumped to a whopping 370 percent for black women over 50 who had aborted.
The plaintiff in the North Dakota case didn't want money. She just wanted women to be informed that 28 studies have found that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer and that 7 studies hadn't found increased risk. This way women can really make a proper and informed "choice."
Abortion are elective surgeries, and all risks must be told to the patient. Had this been any other form of elective surgery, other than abortion, with this kind of evidence, there is absolutely no doubt the judge would have ruled in favor of disclosing the risks prior to surgery. The evidence is overwhelming.
To give you more proof of the involvement of politics at the expense of good medicine, on March 8, in California, Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prather issued an order dismissing a case on a lawsuit which sought to force Planned Parenthood to provide truthful and accurate information to women about the connection between induced abortions and breast cancer.
There was no trial. The judge just read the briefs presented to him by both parties in his chambers and said there was not enough evidence to go to trial.
Can you beat that? The evidence showing that abortions increase the risk of breast canceris superior in numbers and quality to the evidence that shows otherwise.
Breast cancer cases have almost doubled since abortions were legalized in 1973, while all other cancers remain the same and some have gone down. How do the NCI and the ACS explain the skyrocketing rate of breast cancer since abortions were made legal in 1973? They can't and don't even attempt to do so.
The following is the mechanism which causes breast cancer in women, who have abortions. It is never refuted by the NCI or the ACS. Why not? Because it is physiologically accurate.
When pregnancy occurs, there is a surge of estrogen. This hormone causes the breast cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester in order to lay the foundation for theproduction of milk. These young growing cells are more prone to develop cancer.
In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels recede under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells, then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred,the cells are less likely to turn cancerous.
When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells) - having undergone drastic changes - are now in limbo. they are no longer normal breast cells, nor are they capable of producing milk.
In plain English, these insulted cells (traumatized) have been hung out to dry. They are between a rock and a hard place. Scientists have known for years that any cell in the human body that has been traumatized, whether by chemicals, radiation, micro-trauma, or any other reason would be especially vulnerable to cancer. One must then surmise that what has been instilled in physicians heads from time immemorial, regarding the vulnerability of abnormal cells, is no longer valid.
To suit their political agenda, the NCI, ACS and the abortion industry would have you believe that an abnormal cell is no more prone to becoming cancerous than a normal cell. This defies all scientific knowledge, as well as common sense.
It has also been long known that a pregnancy carried to term protects against breast cancer. Even the NCI and the ACS, admit to this. However, if a woman has an induced abortion, this protection is terminated.
The estrogen-breast cancer risk has been known by doctors for many years, thus their reluctance to prescribe estrogen for menopausal women, especially those with any family history of breast cancer.
Women, who start their periods early and go through menopause late are exposed to more estrogen, because they have more periods. And women who have fewer or no children, are exposed to more surges of estrogen that come with more menstrual cycles. Women who breast feed their babies, also have fewer menstrual cycles, thereby lowering their risk.
Foods high in animal fat can increase the blood estrogen level and thus increase the breast cancer risk. Leafy vegetables tend to help a woman, to rid her system of estrogen.
As you can see, the estrogen factor is not just in the area of reproduction.
We are warned of these risks by the top medical journals and the media. We are told what to eat and not to eat, but the biggest risk of all, the abortion-breast cancer link, they tell us NOTHING.
Does not an abortion delay a full term delivery? Of course.
Another inane objection -- not getting pregnant at all for any reason delays a full term delivery.
You can't claim, as you did in Post #37, that "There is no link between abortion and breast cancer" as if it's a settled matter, unless you're either ignorant or deliberately being intellectually dishonest.
Based on your responses, I choose the latter.
Ha ha. The Denmark study was of 1.5 million women. Which the author of this polemic claimed was "a study that matched their political views and lo and behold they found just what they wanted in little Denmark."
Your very very biased author completely fails to account for recall bias in the studies he likes. Well, he can't make it go away so easily. Sorry.
I might be...she might be...there might be as many tummy-tuck related fatalities...
Do you ever base your opinions on facts, or is it always feelings?
Carol Everett had no reason to leave the abortion business, unless what she is telling us is the truth. Before you challenge her character, why don't you find a better reason than the fact that she passionately believes what she says? The most likely reason for her to passionately believe it is that it's the truth.
Shalom.
You'll notice that nobody who challenges your definition has been willing to offer his own.
Shalom.
Not necessarily. Have you ever seen/read the book, "A Child is Born" by Lennart Nilsson? He is a Swedish photographer, born in 1922, and "pro-choice" by his own admission. The book was first published in 1965 (English, 1966). I suggest that you read the book and look at the pictures.
And what is "any meaningful sense"? Perhaps you have already chosen to believe it is not human, and hence, no amount of factual information can change your mind? (Just because 9 people state that the correct answer to the problem "2+2" is "5", that doesn't mean that the 10th person who gives the answer "4" is wrong.)
Please read the book, open your mind, and think about it.
Thank you for sharing that info. It is very interesting. I would love to know what is happening in the 2-3 cell transition.
His theory - atheistic theory - was that at 2 cells there was not a living organism but at 3 cells there was. When he attempted to transplant a cell replacing one of the three, the other two rejected the transplant, just as your own body is likely to reject a transplanted heart.
I wish I could remember his name. He was on a Christian radio talk show but was not flummoxed by any of the Christian jargon the host was using. He just stuck to his science, and his belief that this was a distinct, living, human organism at least from the point where it was divided into 3 cells.
Shalom.
Whose DNA did it have?
Shalom.
At least you are "alive" bleepthch, unlike your baby.
What happens at conception if not life?
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.