Status
Not open for further replies.

tiglathpileser

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2016
519
168
83
Australia
✟9,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
<staff edit>
Dr. Joel Brind is a professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York since 1986, a research biochemist since 1981, and CEO of Natural Food Science, a maker of glycine supplement products founded in 2010. Brind is a leading advocate of the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, which states that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.[1] This idea is rejected by mainstream medical professional organizations despite overwhelming evidence in the peer-reviewed medical literature since 1957. (Recent evidence confirms the “ABC Link”, in dozens of studies from Asia, just within the last 10 years.)[2][3][4][5][6] Brind is therefore openly contemptuous of mainstream medical professional organizations and journals, accusing them of conducting a deliberate cover-up[7] with the goal of "protecting the abortion industry",[8] and asserting in print that the National Cancer Institute "...is just another corrupt federal agency like the IRS and the NSA."[9]

<staff edit>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

tiglathpileser

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2016
519
168
83
Australia
✟9,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Lifenews.com is not an unbiased source.

Neither are any of the mainstream media, but that doesn't stop people, especially those the MSM are biased for quoting them as though what they said was gospel.
 
Upvote 0

tiglathpileser

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2016
519
168
83
Australia
✟9,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

The fact is they are not unbiased as Anne Lastman has written a book of 150 cases of women who have been traumatised by abortion amongst which some have had breast cancer, so they are only seeing what they want to see.

And of course we won't mention all those experts who claim that abortion does not affect women negatively, when the evidence is staring you in the face.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Neither are any of the mainstream media, but that doesn't stop people, especially those the MSM are biased for quoting them as though what they said was gospel.
But in the current discussion we aren't talking about the mainstream media. We are talking about anti-cancer organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the Susan Koman Race for the Cure.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The fact is they are not unbiased as Anne Lastman has written a book of 150 cases of women who have been traumatised by abortion amongst which some have had breast cancer, so they are only seeing what they want to see.

Let's see, Anne Lastman has written a book and some of women in it had breast cancer. What? How does that in any way prove that the ACAid biased.

And of course we won't mention all those experts who claim that abortion does not affect women negatively, when the evidence is staring you in the face.

But the claim here was that abortion causes breast cancer. Where is the evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Dr. Joel Brind is a professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York since 1986, a research biochemist since 1981, and CEO of Natural Food Science, a maker of glycine supplement products founded in 2010. Brind is a leading advocate of the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, which states that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.[1] This idea is rejected by mainstream medical professional organizations despite overwhelming evidence in the peer-reviewed medical literature since 1957. (Recent evidence confirms the “ABC Link”, in dozens of studies from Asia, just within the last 10 years.)[2][3][4][5][6] Brind is therefore openly contemptuous of mainstream medical professional organizations and journals, accusing them of conducting a deliberate cover-up[7] with the goal of "protecting the abortion industry",[8] and asserting in print that the National Cancer Institute "...is just another corrupt federal agency like the IRS and the NSA."[9]

A bit like the APA protecting the homosexual industry by telling lies.
You didn't identify where this is from but I know that it is from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a good basic reference tool, but it isn't entirely accurate because people can go on and make changes. Some if the footnotes to what you posted are to publications by anti-abortion organizations.
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
You wish! When the APA openly admits that it skewed its research in favour of homosexual outcomes and not using scientific evidence it makes it very clear that any organization can be bought.

I have a feeling that if the Cancer Society said "Don't be fooled. Abortion causes breast cancer" you would be disowning them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say causes it but you are right to point out that there is definitely a link. Women have the right to know about all the risks that come with an abortion. And there are many. Many so-called pro-choicers reject the idea of women having the opportunity of giving informed consent. This is why they fight against having women see an ultrasound. Women who see an ultra sound change their minds about abortion. http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/07/78-of-pregnant-women-seeing-an-ultrasound-reject-abortions/

Planned Parenthood of course fights against women having all the facts. http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/06/...en-should-not-see-the-ultrasound-of-the-baby/

And pro-abortion advocates (notice I am using the term pro-abortion now because if you are really about choice you should be defending the right of women to make fully informed choices otherwise you are pro-abortion) will trip over themselves to find links that say women who see ultrasounds are not deterred when it comes to getting an abortion. That is false. A high percentage are deterred but it affects the bottom line of abortion provider$. So they lie.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is what? Please be plain, even blunt if you must. Beating around the bush just makes you look like you are trying to hide or avoid something. Are you?
I don't claim to be the brightest brain around, help me out here, would you?

Whenever someone defends the pro life position the immediate counter is "you are pro birth but are you pro social programs to support the child.

It is a straw man beat up often on these threads. It amounts to mind reading and is presuppositional judgment.

It tends to shift the goal posts away from discussing the murder of a human being.

Perhaps you were responding to someone using that defense and if so you have my apologies.

If you were posing that presupposition then I believe you need to provide evidence pro lifers are callous to the needs of the birthed child and mother. Not generalized talking points of what people read in forums.

I can give ample evidence to refute the claim and have in the past by offering information on pro life pregnancy crisis centers, shelters, adoptive services, education programs, employment training and placement. That is quite some evidence to support the claim pro life means womb to tomb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Whenever someone defends the pro life position the immediate counter is "you are pro birth but are you pro social programs to support the child.

It is a straw man beat up often on these threads. It amounts to mind reading and is presuppositional judgment.

It tends to shift the goal posts away from discussing the murder of a human being.

Perhaps you were responding to someone using that defense and if so you have my apologies.

If you were posing that presupposition then I believe you need to provide evidence pro lifers are callous to the needs of the birthed child and mother. Not generalized talking points of what people read in forums.

I can give ample evidence to refute the claim and have in the past by offering information on pro life pregnancy crisis centers, shelters, adoptive services, education programs, employment training and placement. That is quite some evidence to support the claim pro life means womb to tomb.

Exactly. And I don't need to adopt or support a single mother to be legitimately against the killing of the unborn. Many people do give $support in money and time and maybe I do a lot more than anyone knows. But what I do after a child is born has nothing to do with the real issue: it's morally wrong to kill an innocent unborn human being without moral justification. There is no moral justification for killing the unborn. Therefore abortion is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Whenever someone defends the pro life position the immediate counter is "you are pro birth but are you pro social programs to support the child.

It is a straw man beat up often on these threads. It amounts to mind reading and is presuppositional judgment.
I think it's a valid observation. I cannot accuse any particular person of having those views, unless they said so themselves and have not done so.
Perhaps you were responding to someone using that defense and if so you have my apologies.
No reason to apologize. I was putting out there in the discussion because I feel that it is a valid conversation to have because it is directly connected to why some women have abortions to begin with.
Most people do have at least reservations about the morality of abortion, even among those who are pro-choice.
If you were posing that presupposition then I believe you need to provide evidence pro lifers are callous to the needs of the birthed child and mother. Not generalized talking points of what people read in forums.
I have talked to enough people over my 64 yrs. to make solid observations and reach conclusions long before there was such a thing as online forums.
I can give ample evidence to refute the claim and have in the past by offering information on pro life pregnancy crisis centers, shelters, adoptive services, education programs, employment training and placement. That is quite some evidence to support the claim pro life means womb to tomb.
I have a nephew who was adopted back in the 70s through a Christian organization. Some of these organizations do an amazing job in their ministry, others not as much, but I don't think it is because they don't want to provide more help. It is more likely because there just it's the funding that they need. Now some of them that do work the with the state adoptions are being threatened that if they don't allow s-s couples to adopt, the state will stop their funding. Grrrrrrrrrrr......Do we want women to stop aborting their children and choose adoption instead? This doesn't help!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nic Samojluk

Newbie
Apr 27, 2013
1,748
170
California
Visit site
✟11,911.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
However, what you have said supports what I have been saying: If you friend is building a house but it is on your property without your permission, yes you do have the right to remove it.

Your property? Don’t you realize that we do not own our bodies? They belong to the Lord, according to the Bible. This means that God is building on his own property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Nic Samojluk

Newbie
Apr 27, 2013
1,748
170
California
Visit site
✟11,911.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Perhaps you should check your numbers. Abortion numbers have been significant for over a century. The so-called sexual revolution was not a major factor in abortion numbers.

Take a look at the following statistics:

Reported Annual Abortions - 1973-2012

YEAR GI CDC
1973
744,610 615,831
1974 898,570 763,476
1975 1,034,170 854,853
1976 1,179,300 988,267
1977 1,316,700 1,079,430
1978 1,409,600 1,157,776
1979 1,497,670 1,251,921
1980 1,553,890 1,297,606
1981 1,577,340 1,300,760
1982 1,573,920 1,303,980
1983 1,575,000 1,268,987

As you can see the number of abortions doubled in a few years following the legalization of abortion.

Ref.: http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
 
Upvote 0

Nic Samojluk

Newbie
Apr 27, 2013
1,748
170
California
Visit site
✟11,911.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Human laws are superior for the simple reason that they are the only ones that exist!

Ignoring God's authority is not a wise decision. Sooner or later you will discover this undeniable truth.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Take a look at the following statistics:

Reported Annual Abortions - 1973-2012

YEAR GI CDC
1973
744,610 615,831
1974 898,570 763,476
1975 1,034,170 854,853
1976 1,179,300 988,267
1977 1,316,700 1,079,430
1978 1,409,600 1,157,776
1979 1,497,670 1,251,921
1980 1,553,890 1,297,606
1981 1,577,340 1,300,760
1982 1,573,920 1,303,980
1983 1,575,000 1,268,987

As you can see the number of abortions doubled in a few years following the legalization of abortion.

Ref.: http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
They're back down to the early to mid-seventies levels. Not good but at least they are not going up, even in such bad economic times as these. I think that means that there is hope.
2008 1,212,350 825,564 *
2009 1,151,600 789,116 *
2010 1,102,670 765,651 *
2011 1,058,490 730,322 *
2012 1,058,490 ** 699,022 *
http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That person does not own her body. It belongs to the Lord who designed and created it.
But it hasn't up to you to tell another what she can do with her body. What she does is between her and God.
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,326.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
But it hasn't up to you to tell another what she can do with her body. What she does is between her and God.
Which God is that?....the one in the Bible or something else?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think it's a valid observation. I cannot accuse any particular person of having those views, unless they said so themselves and have not done so.

The above is a perfect example of a straw man.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Which God is that?....the one in the Bible or something else?
If she is a Christian it would be the God of the Bible, the one true God. Last time I checked He is in the business of forgiving sins.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The above is a perfect example of a straw man.
Actually a true straw man us when you make a point, then attack your own point. Essentially you defeat a point your opponent never made. This wa clearly labeled as being an observation; I'm not sure that it qualifies as a straw man.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.