Abortion Discussion

[PapaZoom]

Posting a bunch of very old data doesn't help your position. The oldest if these studies is 1957, almost 60 years old. The newest is 1997, almost 20 years old. Further many of these don't appear to be linked to abortion--diet, oral contraceptive use, menstrual factors? Try again.

The age of the studies doesn't mean they don't show a connection between abortion and cancer.

 

[Archivist]

Because every major organization doesn't in fact do that.

As was pointed out earlier the US National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Canaduan Cancer Research Conference, the Getman Cancer Society all say that there is no link. You were asked to name any major organizations that say otherwise. You named none.

 

[PapaZoom]

As was pointed out earlier the US National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Canaduan Cancer Research Conference, the Getman Cancer Society all say that there is no link. You were asked to name any major organizations that say otherwise. You named none.

Press Release: Legally Induced Abortion: the best predictor of 3 British breast cancer trends. New Findings presented in a Paris Meeting of statisticians and epidemiologists on September 7 th . http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/PatrickCarroll0509.PDF

Breast Cancer and Induced Abortion: A Comprehensive Review of Breast Development and Pathophysiology, the Epidemiologic Literature, and Proposal for Creation of Databanks to Elucidate All Breast Cancer Risk Factors
http://abortionbreastcancer.com/docs/Breast-cancer-and-induced-abortion-Lanfranchi-Spring-2014.pdf

Our overview of the research and of advances in the biology of breast develop‑ ment show different magnitudes of breast cancer risk following a procured abortion. The independent effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk as demonstrated in epidemiological studies varies from small to large and from nonsignificant to marginally or highly significant, depending on myriad factors now known to affect these rates. Though the independent effect of induced abortion is not always statistically large, it is important to consider the overall influence that abortion has in shaping one’s repro‑ 196 Janet R. Daling, Kathleen E. Malone, Lynda F. Voigt, Emily White, and Noel S. Weiss, “Risk of Breast Cancer among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortions,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86 (1994): 1584-1592. 197 Because induced abortion will leave a childless woman with more undifferentiated breast tissue than a woman who has never been pregnant, one might expect those women taking oral contraceptives after an induced abortion to be at higher risk for breast cancer than a woman who does not take them after an abortion. 112 Issues in Law & Medicine, Volume 29, Number 1, 2014 ductive history. The single effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk is trumped by the overall effect of a long-term avoidance of pregnancy. In this lifestyle pattern, the effects of late age at first full-term pregnancy or nulliparity, oral contraceptive use, and induced abortion (possibly while nulliparous or long before first birth, if any) could all be evident and working in concert to increase a woman’s breast cancer risk. Additionally, whereas a woman cannot control some aspects of her risk of breast cancer—for exam‑ ple, genetic mutations—induced abortion is a modifiable risk. For instance, adoption alternatives would permit the mother to experience full-term pregnancy’s risk reduction, which may be important to women who have a high risk of breast cancer for other reasons, while shortening the waiting times of adoptive parents. As stated in a major text, “Nevertheless, a social norm that encouraged carefully planned first pregnancies at the beginning of advanced education and career development would reduce breast cancer rates.”198

http://www.conservapedia.com/National_Cancer_Institute_on_Abortion

Epidemiological Research
Two reviews support an independent link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk. [12][13] A review of 10 studies that are being widely used to deny a link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in 2005. It demonstrated that the ten studies "embody many serious weaknesses and flaws..." and they "do not invalidate the large body of previously published studies that establish induced abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer."[14]

Other investigators - Edward Furton, Ph.D., editor of the journal Ethics and Medics, and R. L. Walley, Executive Director and Honourary Research Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at MaterCare International - argue that "shoddy research" is being conducted by scientists who strongly favor abortion. [Furton E. Editorial. The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-2. Available at:http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/E+MDec2004-EFurtonarticle.PDF] [Personal e-mail message from R. L. Walley. FRCSC., FRCOG., MPH sent to Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/051205quote/index.htm]

Medical Elite Privately Say Abortion Causes Breast Cancer, but It's 'Too Political' to Discuss Publicly
In a lawsuit filed against Planned Parenthood Federation of American in California Superior Court for falsely advertising the alleged safety of abortion, Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., a New Jersey breast surgeon, declared under oath that members of the nation's medical elite are aware that abortion causes breast cancer. However, they refuse to say so publicly because it is ‘too political.' She said to the court:

"In September 1999 I wrote a letter to the president and each of the board members of my medical society, the American Society of Breast Surgeons. My letter … said that doctors… need to get this information (about abortion and breast cancer) to the public, and asked that an expert be invited to address the Society on this issue. Some time later I called the president, Dr. Rachel Simmons, and she told me, apologetically, that she presented it to the board but they felt it was 'too political.'

"In March 2000 I attended the Miami Breast Cancer Conference…. I asked the conference director, Dan Osman, M.D. if he knew there was a link between abortion and breast cancer. I was stunned when he said that he did. I asked him why there couldn't be a presentation about it at the meeting. He said it was 'too political.'

"Over the past three or four years, I have spoken with many authorities and people in a position to be well informed. Some have been straightforward and said they know it is a risk factor but felt it was 'too political' to speak about. Others have been evasive…. Some have been openly hostile…. Some initially hostile doctors … debated it with me and have changed their minds. Some pro-choice doctors have come to agree it is true and do tell their patients about the risk. Some doctors who were initially skeptical have started obtaining a complete reproductive history on their patients and found as I did that … cases of breast cancer in young women are associated with an abortion history…." [15]

Just give women that actual facts and not the spin and then let them decide. The left wants to paint a different picture of abortion that is the actual case. Women have the right to know these things. The left hides the truth.

 

[PapaZoom]

73 Studies Have Examined Abortion and Breast Cancer, 53 Show Higher Risk
DR. PETER SAUNDERS AUG 19, 2013 | 12:57PM WASHINGTON, D
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/19/...ortion-and-breast-cancer-53-show-higher-risk/

 

[Archivist]

73 Studies Have Examined Abortion and Breast Cancer, 53 Show Higher Risk
DR. PETER SAUNDERS AUG 19, 2013 | 12:57PM WASHINGTON, D
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/19/...ortion-and-breast-cancer-53-show-higher-risk/

Lifenews.com is not an unbiased source.

 

[Archivist]

Just give women that actual facts and not the spin and then let them decide. The left wants to paint a different picture of abortion that is the actual case. Women have the right to know these things. The left hides the truth.

Interesting that the Conservapedia
link that you provided noted that the NCI ruled that abortion is not associated with an increased breast cancer risk. Your own source. Try again.

 

[PapaZoom]

Lifenews.com is not an unbiased source.

They cite research that is reliable. You commit the genetic fallacy anyway.

 

[PapaZoom]

Interesting that the Conservapedia
link that you provided noted that the NCI ruled that abortion is not associated with an increased breast cancer risk. Your own source. Try again.

I read it and it says no such thing.

 

[PapaZoom]

 

[PapaZoom]

Please note that denials and attacks on the credibility of the doctor in this video will follow. But ZERO posters will address the actual study findings or the science behind breast development during pregnancy.

 

[Archivist]

They cite research that is reliable. You commit the genetic fallacy anyway.

No, they cite research that is favorable to their political views. Instead why not look at reports from organizations that are dedicated to fighting cancer. They are not trying to push any political views on the subject of abortion.

National Cancer Institute report concluded that "having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer." The full report can be found here: http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk

Susan G. Koman Fund states that "Research clearly shows abortion (also called induced abortion) does not increase the risk of breast cancer." That webpage can be found here: https://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/Table25Abortionandbreastcancerrisk.html

American Cancer Society has written that "scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer." That page can be found here: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

When you find similiar unbiased unbiased material please provide links.

 

[PapaZoom]

Sign in the waiting room of Summit Women’s Center, owned by David Lipton, an abortion clinic in Connecticut:


“The staff in this office does sacred work and though you may hope to never come back, we return each day to hear your stories, hold your hands, and ease your fears. Our lives are consumed with caring for yours. In these walls and in our hearts you are forever valued, treasured, respected and safe.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/29/...ys-the-staff-in-this-office-does-sacred-work/

[Just don't forget that payment is due on delivery...er.....]

 

[KCfromNC]

<staff edit>
"Because induced abortion will leave a childless woman with more undifferentiated breast tissue than a woman who has never been pregnant, one might expect those women taking oral contraceptives after an induced abortion to be at higher risk for breast cancer than a woman who does not take them after an abortion. 112 Issues in Law & Medicine, Volume 29, Number 1, 2014 ductive history. The single effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk is trumped by the overall effect of a long-term avoidance of pregnancy. In this lifestyle pattern, the effects of late age at first full-term pregnancy or nulliparity, oral contraceptive use, and induced abortion (possibly while nulliparous or long before first birth, if any) could all be evident and working in concert to increase a woman’s breast cancer risk. Additionally, whereas a woman cannot control some aspects of her risk of breast cancer—for exam‑ ple, genetic mutations—induced abortion is a modifiable risk. For instance, adoption alternatives would permit the mother to experience full-term pregnancy’s risk reduction, which may be important to women who have a high risk of breast cancer for other reasons, while shortening the waiting times of adoptive parents."

<staff edit>

 

[Dave-W]

If they were valid major cancer organizations such as the American Cancer Society would be citing them.

OR - they do NOT want to cite them for fear of being seen as opposing abortions - which is a major 3rd rail in US politics.

Funding goes away. Stricter political oversight. Harassment from various groups.

Hard science often gets swept away under such considerations. If you were a geologist or oceanographer in the 1940s and 50s and believed in tectonic plate movement, you were unemployed and unemployable. The woman who worked in this very office and mapped and made a model of the mid-Atlantic ridge in the 1950s almost got fired just for making it; because it appeared to be evidence for tectonic movement. Her boss refused, but almost got fired himself for not firing her.

 

[Archivist]

OR - they do NOT want to cite them for fear of being seen as opposing abortions - which is a major 3rd rail in US politics. Funding goes away. Stricter political oversight. Harassment from various groups.

Since when is abortion the "3rd rail in US politics"? Never heard that one before. Social Security, yes, but not abortion. Even if that is true, how does it expalin similiar reports from Canadian, German and British anti-cancer groups as I cited earlier in the thread?

Hard science often gets swept away under such considerations. If you were a geologist or oceanographer in the 1940s and 50s and believed in tectonic plate movement, you were unemployed and unemployable. The woman who worked in this very office and mapped and made a model of the mid-Atlantic ridge in the 1950s almost got fired just for making it; because it appeared to be evidence for tectonic movement. Her boss refused, but almost got fired himself for not firing her.

And what proof do you have that this has happened here?

 

[rjs330]

Since we are talking about women's health issues regarding abortions, what about their mental health? Women who have abortions have a high rate of mental health issues. More than if they had the baby.
http://healthresearchfunding.org/19-shocking-post-abortion-depression-statistics/

But my biggest concern is for the baby not the mom. The baby is an innocent life and by all accounts of morality it's wrong to take an innocent life. The ONLY exception would be in the case of taking an innocent life to save an innocent life. That's a call I would not want to make. But bottom line is a baby is a human being and is innocent. Killing it for convience sake is murder.

 

[PapaZoom]

Since we are talking about women's health issues regarding abortions, what about their mental health? Women who have abortions have a high rate of mental health issues. More than if they had the baby.
http://healthresearchfunding.org/19-shocking-post-abortion-depression-statistics/

But my biggest concern is for the baby not the mom. The baby is an innocent life and by all accounts of morality it's wrong to take an innocent life. The ONLY exception would be in the case of taking an innocent life to save an innocent life. That's a call I would not want to make. But bottom line is a baby is a human being and is innocent. Killing it for convience sake is murder.

Exactly right! There are support groups all over the world for women who suffer from abortion regret. PP never tells them about this sad reality. http://hopeafterabortion.com/?page_id=18

 

[PapaZoom]

Psalm 139:13–16.

For You formed my inward parts:
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

I was ME while yet in the womb and God knew ME then!

 

[BiblicalAstronomy]

Psalm 139:13–16.

For You formed my inward parts:
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

I was ME while yet in the womb and God knew ME then!

He also Knew you from before the foundations of the Earth [Eph. 1:4] due to His perfect foreknowledge, just as He knew Adam in the same way and everything here except the "mother's womb" reference applies to Adam also...

 

[tiglathpileser]

I believe that was in response to the pain issue. At any rate I take that position because of the development of the fetus and the potential of causing pain. Do spontaneous abortions cause pain?
Many people when they have to have a pet put down they ask if it will cause the pet to experience pain. I wish more people do take this into consideration when thinking about abortion.

So it has nothing at all to do with whether God intended it to be that way or God approves of the baby killing before 12 weeks?