F
Abortion Boosts Breast Cancer Risk 193% Study Finds, Giving Birth Lowers It
- Status
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Acually the cancer website does direct you to the location of the studies online. 28 out of 34 studies? Are you suggesting that only 34 studies ever have researched a link?
Sorry, but the fact that the WHO, American Medical Association, British Medication Association, and many other official medical bodies reject these so-called “scientific studies” which “prove” that abortion=breast cancer by 300% or some other ridiculous figure, means they probably worth the paper they’re written on. It’s common sense really. Anyone with a basic understanding of maths can twist figures to say what they want - and especially as this study can only be found on a pro-life website (and they’re notorious for distorting science to try and prove a moral point which is bizarre in itself to me) makes it just a little bit unbelievable.
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
That isn’t the paper used in the news article, this report is from Sri Lanka not Iran.
It suffers from the same problems as many past studies:
“Most early studies of abortion and breast cancer used a case-control study design. This study design is very prone to recall bias (see above). In these studies, women with and without breast cancer were asked about past abortions. The researchers then compared the frequency of abortions in women with breast cancer (the cases) to those in women without breast cancer (the controls). It is likely that the higher rates of reported abortions in breast cancer cases (versus the controls), as seen in some of these studies, were not true findings because of recall bias. Studies that ask women about abortion before breast cancer is diagnosed do not seem to find this link.”
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
heh heh you said maths… Dang brits
Second, it is quite obvious that many of these studies are somewhat ridiculous in their assertions, on both sides. Seriously, when a study comes up with literally 0 change in the breast cancer rate based upon something so major as an abortion, there is a problem with that. Its kind of like saying having open heart surgery has 0 impact on DVT.
And where do you find the AMA and BMA rejecting these studies as flawed? I find lots of statements saying “There is no link” but none addressing the individual studies or responding to them in any significant way. Heck, the BMJ stated “However, in the light of recent unease about appropriate but open communication of risks associated with oral contraceptive pills, it will surely be agreed that open discussion of risks is vital and must include the people – in this case the women – concerned. I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called ‘pro-choice’, you need at the same time to have a view which might be called ‘pro-information’ without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data.[16]” from wiki (shudder). When there is data, sound or not, from either side, that should be disclosed. And when a political group that actively promotes something (the WHO and abortion) makes a statement regarding that something, I think that would be a bit biased, the same as you view us pro-lifers making statements re: ABC.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
yes, yes, I know its not the same one, but the paper referred to in the article was not easily available and since I am quite lazy I chose to reference this one instead.
And I disagree somewhat with the assertion that recall bias causes false results in that many studies. if the results are that similar that many times, it would seem to me to be a relatively sound result (barring the 300% effect studies which are obviously ridiculous and the protective effect of abortion that PP has published).
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
Or it would seem that recall bias is consistent.
B
brumano
Guest
One thing you’ll have to admit when you find it is that it is a clinical study, it uses and depends more on medical science which can itself be analyzed along more scientific lines, pro or con. This is in contrast to the study you provided, which is highly subjective, claiming that post abortive adolescents suffer no higher incidence of depression than non abortive adolescents (incidentally this study ignores the existence of the male gender) and as such (because of it’s subjectivity) cannot be evaluated to have any conclusive or even semi conclusive meaning.
The above studies and all such studies that revolve around a moral issue are in fact impertinent, they are secondary to the primary moral issue itself. That of course is what has to be determined, and it is a moral question that must be answered with moral truth and nothing else. It would not matter if in fact there were no ill effects of having an abortion on these abortive mothers, it would’nt even matter if somehow abortion were proven to have all beneficial physical effects in every case on all abortive mothers, that would not change the truth in one iota. Life begins at the moment of conception ( don’t scoff at this because yours did too) this is the immutable truth that has to be studied, and it must be faced, and it must be obeyed.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
The references to AMA and BMA are in the Wikipedia article I posted on page 1 of this thread. Follow the links on the citations.heh heh you said maths… Dang brits
Second, it is quite obvious that many of these studies are somewhat ridiculous in their assertions, on both sides. Seriously, when a study comes up with literally 0 change in the breast cancer rate based upon something so major as an abortion, there is a problem with that. Its kind of like saying having open heart surgery has 0 impact on DVT.
And where do you find the AMA and BMA rejecting these studies as flawed? I find lots of statements saying “There is no link” but none addressing the individual studies or responding to them in any significant way. Heck, the BMJ stated “However, in the light of recent unease about appropriate but open communication of risks associated with oral contraceptive pills, it will surely be agreed that open discussion of risks is vital and must include the people – in this case the women – concerned. I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called ‘pro-choice’, you need at the same time to have a view which might be called ‘pro-information’ without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data.[16]” from wiki (shudder). When there is data, sound or not, from either side, that should be disclosed. And when a political group that actively promotes something (the WHO and abortion) makes a statement regarding that something, I think that would be a bit biased, the same as you view us pro-lifers making statements re: ABC.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
See citation 78, 6, 28, 66 AND 67, 79, 68, this citation actually uses one of their groups as a “no effect” control group!!!
See also 99, and 111 figure 3 (despite criticism by Libby Brooks who is a deputy comment editor and does not seem to have any scientific training)
In my admittedly quick perusal of the citations I can find no direct criticisms of the articles published other than a slightly more verbose version of “Nuh uhhh, it does not!!!” and references to the recall bias to which Dr. Kahlenborn replied that “thousands of other studies in medicine might now be deemed ‘worthless.’ Every time one had a disease or ‘effect’ that was caused by a controversial risk factor (i.e., one of the causes), the study might be considered invalid based upon ‘recall bias.’” Citation # 78.
Perhaps you could point out the ones that you feel are pertinent?
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
But just because abortion is immoral does not mean you can make untrue claims about it. “Does abortion cause breast cancer?” is a scientific question. Refusing to believe scientific evidence because of irrelevant morality arguments is simple willful ignorance.
F
forest1970
Guest
I am not saying this to say abortion is okay because it’s not, but this is just one study. There are tens of studies (some with thousands of women involved who were followed for years and evalurated) that show it does not increase the risk of breast cancer especially if the woman is not having multiple abortions. If she is having multiple then it can increase the risk. These studies also show flaws with those studies that do show there is a link.
If it’s true (the studies I have seen have said it’s not), then having a miscarriage would raise your chance as well.
If it’s true (the studies I have seen have said it’s not), then having a miscarriage would raise your chance as well.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Not true. Having a miscarriage, although emotionally traumatic to go through, is a natural process initiated by the body itself. Other mechanisms come into play in a natural process.
Having an abortion is a brutal violent act upon a baby growing in its mother’s womb. The body did not initiate that or have anything to do with it, and 2 seconds before the baby is sucked out into the container, everything was fine. You can compare it to a sudden, drastic amputation, although it’s more than that, obviously.
B
brumano
Guest
Okay in the interest of Science let’s outlaw abortion for at least the same number of years that it has been legal, not that it is truly legal but then at the end of those 40 yrs. we’ll have a qualified study group of women who did not have abortions that can be compared with the stats taken on the study group who did have abortions, then we’ll be certain to have a more accurate finding on the questions of whether or not abortion increases the risk of breast cancer or depression. This way we won’t run the danger of saying something that is incorrect; no matter what, millions of living human beings with the exact same right to live as yours and mine will have survived the worst most atrocious holocaust that could ever be imagined much less carried out and on such a scale in the history of mankind.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
I have this really crazy thing where I need proof before I can believe a scientific point someone says. Those who think it does not cause cancer have provided lots of peer-reviewed evidence. Those who have the opposing opinion seem to be either denying ours, not providing any, or referring to dodgy sources. I’m sorry but its true.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
That’s completely unnessary. We can do that now. And we have. And it’s been proven to be incorrect.
Yet again; the only people who are saying it does cause breast cancer happen to be the ones campaigning aggressively for the end of abortion. Coincidence? I think not. Those not affiliated with a pro-life group do not have the same conclusions. Coincidence? I think not.
B
brumano
Guest
Uh? It’s not completely unnecessary because some or even a large number of the women who were screened in the contemporary studies may have had abortions and for any of one or many reasons may not have disclosed that to the study managers. Also, depending on the study, sometimes researchers will “borrow” information, measurements, and even conclusions from other studies, some of those studies themselves may not even have the same specificity as the study being conducted, the quality of which could easily by a competent expert be thrown itself into great suspicion. No? Witness hundreds and hundreds of Tort cases where professionals have given diametrically opposing opinions on one central trial question.
You state that “we can and have already…proved it in incorrect”; the study which concludes that Abortion Increases the Risk of Breast Cancer Risk 193%. I suppose you and the peer group did this with your own independent study, or how I don’t know but I do know there is huge gaping hole in your statement, and your contentions, because up until very recently the questions about possible risks and even direct causative dangers of undergoing abortion procedures were never even conscienced, spoken of, or studied in mainstream Medicine much less in the Abortion Industry itself. Now if you deny this you will have to tell me, how many of the millions and millions and millions of women who have had abortions were counseled, as any patient of any kind must be counseled by law as to possible risk factors of any kind invoved in undergoing any invasive procedure.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Of course. Us women are so unreliable we need to be controlled by the state in order for any research on us to be viable. You’re speaking to a feminist here, and you’re straying into territory you really really don’t want to. How dare you suggest that any tests done now on women who had abortions/women who didn’t would be unreliable because women may lie. It is possible yes, but any scientific tests have flaws. Also - in the UK at least, there will be a record of any abortion if it was done legally. Therefore, us little women can’t lie. Also, outlawing abortion does not mean that they won’t be carried out. Just accept that your idea was a little bit ridiculous so we can move on please.
Ahem. If you read back in the forum, I provide peer-reviewed evidence which disproves any proven link between abortion and breast cancer.
If you read back some more, you will find that a previous member of this forum did some research about the study which found an 193% increase, and found that this “study” was not mentioned on any other website, and was not peer-reviewed and no other news agency has reported this scientist’s findings. You say its reliable? Hmmm.
Also, are you implying that women in the USA are cancelled about the risks of breast cancer because of abortion? Are you aware of the American Medical Association’s official stance on this issue? No? Good thing I posted this on the thread earlier then.
P
portarica
Guest
Does this study suggest that nuns should be married and have babies to protect their health?
Peace
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
assuming nuns aren’t having abortions, no.
- Status