Billboard: What? An Abortion Increases My Risk For Breast Cancer?

[vz71]

Even if abortion did raise a woman’s risk of breast cancer(which is debatable), I don’t think it would be criminalized. Cigarettes are proven to cause an even deadlier cancer(lung), and they’re not illegal. The pro-life movement would be smart to stick to factual science to support it(like fetal development).

Apples and oranges.
Cigarette smoking causing lung cancer harms only the smoker, and that is their choice.
Abortion harms two people, one of whom has no voice in this.

 

[fnz2thrght]

In my previous post, just one of many studies:

• Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers 13. Boonstra HD et al., Abortion in Women’s Lives, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.

there is no association. Fear is a poor motivator in people. Scaring them will not stop abortions. It only makes our side look weak and unintelligent when we can’t even get our facts straight.

 

[fnz2thrght]

The Guttmacher Institute is hardly an independent unbiased source. I wouldn’t regard anything they published as fact. They have a vested interest in wanting to deny the link seeing as how their affiliate PP, provides the abortions. It would put a serious dent in their business if the link were confirmed.

For many years I have heard and, even now, I hear people staunchly proclaiming that smoking tobacco does not cause cancer. For years and years, those with a vested interest, ie: the tobacco companies, have continued to deny the link and tried to debunk all the studies that showed them wrong.

It is the same here only it is the abortion providers who deny the link. It would hurt their bottom line if the link were confirmed so they twist and squirm and use all the same tactics that the tobacco companies have used so successfully for so many years. All the while, people were dying from using their product as directed and they were raking in the loot.

Can’t have it both ways -on this message board and all over the internet people are using the Guttmacher institute to back their claims of numbers of abortions and other statistics. Either we use those stats or we don’t, but you can’t use them for one purpose and disregard the rest of what they say.

and it ISN’T just the abortion providers who cite no correlation. Do the research.

cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report

 

[fnz2thrght]

Apples and oranges.
Cigarette smoking causing lung cancer harms only the smoker, and that is their choice.
Abortion harms two people, one of whom has no voice in this.

Haven’t you ever heard of second hand smoke???

 

[buffalo]

Two Ways that Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk

 

[fnz2thrght]

Please, that’s hardly a reliable source and all the so called “reasearch” they’re quoting from is so old (1980’s, 1970’s, ) that all has long since been refuted. It’s also somehow implying that women who delay first pregnancies have all had abortions, or that abortion is the reason for delaying pregnancies, another fact that we know is incorrect and in fact completely silly to even mention. This post belongs in the “fantasy” forum not the apologetics forum.

Please, facts. Not spurious incendiary propaganda. .

 

[buffalo]

Please, facts. Not spurious incendiary propaganda. .

The Cover-Up: Critics Blow Smoke to Confuse the Public

 

[fnz2thrght]

where’e the rolleyes emoticon?

You’re not stating anything factual. You’re pointing to the same biased website.

You go on believing what you want. Personally, I know we won’t win this war with propaganda.

 

[Gisella]

Apples and oranges.
Cigarette smoking causing lung cancer harms only the smoker, and that is their choice.
Abortion harms two people, one of whom has no voice in this.

Which is why whether it causes breast cancer is irrelevant. People are allowed to harm themselves.

 

[Gisella]

Please, that’s hardly a reliable source and all the so called “reasearch” they’re quoting from is so old (1980’s, 1970’s, ) that all has long since been refuted. It’s also somehow implying that women who delay first pregnancies have all had abortions, or that abortion is the reason for delaying pregnancies, another fact that we know is incorrect and in fact completely silly to even mention. This post belongs in the “fantasy” forum not the apologetics forum.

Please, facts. Not spurious incendiary propaganda. .

I agree. I find the implication that all women who wait until their late twenties and thirties to have children have had abortions down right offensive. That study basically says that delaying childbearing and having abortions are interchangable.

 

[fnz2thrght]

That study basically says that delaying childbearing and having abortions are interchangable.

that’s exactly what they’re trying to say.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Can’t have it both ways -on this message board and all over the internet people are using the Guttmacher institute to back their claims of numbers of abortions and other statistics. Either we use those stats or we don’t, but you can’t use them for one purpose and disregard the rest of what they say.

and it ISN’T just the abortion providers who cite no correlation. Do the research.

cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report

Pro-life people use Guttmacher research figures because pro-death people won’t look at anything else. They reject everything else as biased. If the pro-life people want to reach those who do not know, they are constrained to use figures from the opposition. The opposition can’t reject those figures citing bias because they are their own figures.

Plus, Guttmacher is the only one with access to PP records. Abortion statistics are notoriously difficult to obtain (such as how many women die directly from abortion). Not like the survival rates for open-heart surgery or appendicectomies - we gather this information all the time without compromising patient privacy, but when it comes to abortion - no information is released.

If I were contemplating elective surgery, I would want to know ALL the contra-indications, not just what the surgeon, who stands to make a big profit from the procedure, deigns to tell me. When I was recommended to have some sinus surgery, the doctor was required by law to give me a fact sheet detailing all known possible complications. Since one of those complications, admittedly rare, was the possibility waking up permanently blind in one or both eyes since they could accidently sever the optic nerve(s) with their laser while scraping out my sinuses, I declined the surgery. I’d rather have a permanently stuffed-up nose, than be blind. The point is - I was told everything and made my decision based on that information.

Abortion providers do not want to tell women the truth. They want to make a profit out of killing their babies. They really don’t care what happens to the woman afterwards. [my opinion]

This link between abortion and breast cancer is being tested in the courts here where damages have been awarded to this woman who was not told about the link prior to her abortion. She hasn’t even developed breast cancer, yet the court heard the evidence presented and decided that there was a link and awarded her monetary damages for the non-disclosure. Don’t tell me you reject this information because of the source - the source is just reporting on what happened in court. They did not make this up.

According to a National Cancer Institute (NCI) commissioned study, teens who procure abortions before age 18, more than double their risk. [1] Girls and women have a predominance of immature, cancer-vulnerable Types 1 & 2 breast lobules, which aren’t matured into cancer-resistant Types 3 & 4 lobules until a term pregnancy takes place. Abortion can increase the statistical odds of developing breast cancer in two ways: 1) It delays a first term pregnancy; and 2) It increases the number of cancer-vulnerable breast cells because estrogen overexposure during a normal pregnancy stimulates cell multiplication. Women don’t receive protection from estrogen overexposure until third trimester hormones mature their breast tissue into milk-producing Types 3 & 4 lobules.

Scientists have proven themselves incapable of refuting the biological explanation for the ABC link. Thirteen out of 16 U.S. studies report risk elevations. The NCI provided at least partial funding for 10 studies.

abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/031022/

And here’s another case:

TEENAGER WINS ABORTION-BREAST CANCER CASE

endeavourforum.org.au/april05-03.htm

Originally Posted by Gisella

Which is why whether it causes breast cancer is irrelevant. People are allowed to harm themselves.

Maybe they are, but don’t you think they should know that it is a possibility before they have the abortion? Maybe they don’t want to harm themselves.

 

[vz71]

In my previous post, just one of many studies:

• Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers 13. Boonstra HD et al., Abortion in Women’s Lives, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.

there is no association. Fear is a poor motivator in people. Scaring them will not stop abortions. It only makes our side look weak and unintelligent when we can’t even get our facts straight.

I hate to say stuff like this, it makes me sound like some conspiracy nut job. BUT…
Do you really accept wholeheartedly what the government tells you?

Remember, it was decades after it became obvious that smoking causes cancer that the government began to even review the matter. With a record like that…

 

[vz71]

Haven’t you ever heard of second hand smoke???

I have heard of it. I just have not seen anything remotely convincing concerning it.

 

[vz71]

Which is why whether it causes breast cancer is irrelevant. People are allowed to harm themselves.

But people DO have the right to be aware of the harmful effects of their decisions.
Whether or not it is linked to breast cancer is important in making an informed decision.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Well, it is deniable and has been denied by the National Cancer Institute. cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

Why folks in the pro-life movement still insist that there is a link is a bit mysterious to me, but I think it has to do with wanting to use any argument possible against abortion… which is not a good strategy. False arguments only embolden the opposition and potentially drive away persons who might otherwise be won over.

48 studies have been done, all of which indicate an increased risk of breast cancer following abortions whether those abortions were spontaneous or interventional.

43 of those studies were statistically significant which means that they were the strongest kind of studies possible.

Moreover, abortion survivors are 5 times more likely to have bleeding incidents requiring hospitalization, 5 times more likely to miscarry subsequent babies, 5 times more likely to require hospitalization for psychiatric repercussions.

Yet this information is routinely withheld from candidates for abortion.

… and this is called pro-CHOICE.

 

[PLAL]

This program is just loaded with information which is being hidden from the public.

Karen Malec - The Abortion/Breast Cancer Link on “Catholic Answers” on 1-20-06.

---

In order to hear this program now you will need to go to this link…

www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006

Then go to 1-20-06 and click on “The Abortion/Breast Cancer” Show.

When the window opens up, click on the link next to “Listen (Real)”.

---

Here’s a list of the topics covered by Karen Malec in the talk…

It’s a 55 minute talk. So if you don’t have the time to listen to all of it, I will let you know the important parts to listen. Here they are…

IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

10:00 (minutes into the program) Biology Explaining the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

45:50 (minutes into the program) Please Explain the Biology on How Contraception Contributes to Breast Cancer?

---

OTHER SEGMENTS

2:30 (minutes into the program) Studies Showing A Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

22:45 (minutes into the program) Information on the Relationship Between Oral Contraceptives & Breast Cancer.

27:30 (minutes into the program) Why Does the Susan G Komen Foundation Never Tell Women About the Link Between Abortion/Contraceptives & Breast Cancer?

36:30 (minutes into the program) Studies about Breast Cancer Risk/Who Should You Believe About Whether or Not There’s A Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer?

---

How National Cancer Institute Scientists Betrayed Women, Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Scientific Debate Which Never Happened

cwfa.org/articles/3661/CWA/life/

 

[PLAL]

Here’s a few interesting articles/links about Abortion/Breast Cancer…

New Study Suggests Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Suppressed by Politics

lifesite.net/ldn/2003/aug/03082901.html

Abortion/Breast Cancer Relationship

abortionfacts.com/breast_cancer_connection/breast_cancer_connection.asp

Why No Link Between Miscarriage and Breast Cancer?

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=496038

PinkMoney.org

pinkmoney.org

Study Shows Abortion Increases Risk of Premature Birth

lifenews.com/nat1334.html

Contraception & Breast Cancer

polycarp.org/overviewbreastca…raceptives.htm

New VIDEO Animates Pill = Potential Embryonic Abortion

generationsforlife.org/2007/0525/new-video-on-the-pill/#respond

Can Contraception Cause An Early Abortion?

all.org/article.php?id=10217&PHPSESSID=d6c4aac5ba558445f33333c239f77391

 

[PLAL]

Biological Explanation for the Link

The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy - after 32 weeks gestation - that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated – and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells – than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”

abortionbreastcancer.com/abc_summary.htm#ESTROGEN%2520-%2520THE%2520%2593SMOKING%2520GUN%2594