posted on August 25, 2001 09:34:56 PM new
Yes, Rick, and God also created women's bodies so that sometimes they have spontaneous abortions. . . . Are you saying God set women up to get cancer?
posted on August 25, 2001 09:41:35 PM new
Don't put words in my mouth,roadsmith. I posted an interesting article, much like other people do. I will not open a can of worms on this thread, but mayhap another time I will. If this article sheds new light on PP and abortions, so be it. Breast cancer is the #1 killer of women today, cancer wise. It is nothing to fool around with.
Rick
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on August 25, 2001 09:42:28 PM new""From the information we have been given, it appears as though this is just another malicious and baseless lawsuit aimed at scaring innocent women,"
Planned Parenthood attorney James McElroy said.
"More than a legal strategy, this is an attempt by anti-choice extremists to manipulate the media into disseminating an inaccurate and misleading message to women."
Interesting only in the fact that suddenly a right to life religion biased source finds plenty of use for the science which so often they deny, even though the science relied upon can not be used to show any firm and undeniable causal link between abortion and the incident of breast cancers in women, but istead only have been able to find a possible statistical link which can just as easily be explained by the vagaries of the methodology used.
What they did not mention was the possible link between abortion and breast cancer, although research available as early as 1957 had raised the possibility. Since then the evidence has increased, according to cancer researcher Dr. Joel Brind.
Take this for what you will. I am no expert, but this information was news to me.
RIck
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on August 25, 2001 10:11:12 PM new
I've heard this story for about 30 years, so what's surprising is that these 3 ladies hadn't heard about it. There are hoards of risks associated with an abortion. A link to breast cancer, although not proven, could be one of them....even death could be one, but I'd have to say that it was really their own responsibility to find out what they could before undergoing this type of operation, and not up to Planned Parenthood. Especially in this day & age, there's no excuse IMO.
posted on August 25, 2001 10:29:48 PM new
You claim that the information is news to you, yet organizations for whom you dissiminate propaganda repeatedly over time here have made several attempts to initiate legislation in the vein of this "news" over the course of a number of years.
Your claim of ignorance of this matter is disingenuous considering your posting history, if not an out an out lie.
You say that you are not intending to open a can of worms here and yet with full knowledge that is exactly what you intend to do by generating fear if you can in women which may of itself be harmful to their health and you would not only do them such harm but would attempt to influence their decisions concerning a constitutionally verified right during what is a very emotionally disturbing time for them.
It is your intent to do harm to further your agenda and no denial by you will mask that all too clear fact.
From the link provided:
"Anti-choice propaganda alleging that abortion causes breast cancer is unsubstantiated by scientific research and harmful to women's health. By distorting information and instilling fear in women considering abortion, such propaganda may deter women from exercising their constitutionally protected right to choose a safe medical procedure. Attempts to link abortion to breast cancer are part of a broader campaign by anti-choice forces to stigmatize abortion. Ironically, abortion opponents voice safety arguments when their ultimate goal — to criminalize abortion — is most dangerous for women's health".
posted on August 26, 2001 12:32:06 AM new
While I am certainly no doctor or scientist, I personally find it difficult to believe in any connection between abortion and breast cancer no matter how casual. It's like trying to link amputating a gangerous toe to the developement of brain tumors. Inversely, I think that just about anything will cause cancer anymore -- drinking water, breathing air, eating food, sleeping on detergent-cleaned sheets -- who can say for sure what does or does not cause cancer.
I do have to agree with KRS abou tthe motices of anti-abortion groups that quite often give the raspberries to science no mater how well established and then suddenly embrace the sketchiest of studies and act as if it's hard science. On the one hand they rail about how vague man's relationship to his environment is (pollution, Global Warming) among other pieces of science that they do not agree with for religious reasons and then they turn about and enter lawsuits to gain media attention clammering about the validity of science? Give me a break!
posted on August 26, 2001 04:55:54 AM new
This article from that source is as relevant as one titled, "Women Sue God for Giving Them Breasts." Inside the article we'd find that it has been proven statistically that people with breasts are more prone to breast cancer and god withheld that information when s/he gave them to women.
Unfortunately the source of this article is so blatantly biased, that it shouldn't even call itself news.
I once read that nuns had a higher incidence of breast cancer than the general population. Of course it's not related to religion or god, but if WGOD (or KGOD on the left coast) had gotten stats that revealed that hookers got more breast cancer, you can bet that it would have been sin that caused it.
It's truly sad how many people believe this garbage. I never know whether to feel pity or disgust.
posted on August 26, 2001 06:11:04 AM new
The agenda is very clear in the first link.
If the anti-abortionists can't get you one way, they will try another method, preferably a scare tactic.
You cannot convince me that these 3 women would have reconsidered having abortions had they been aware of the possibility of breast cancer. That is hogwash!!!
Abortion itself is a risk for a woman. Yet, they chose to have abortions because they did not want a child (and didn't take precautions to prevent it). Information upfront about the possibility of breast cancer would not have changed their minds.
posted on August 26, 2001 07:06:23 AM new
With a statistical approuch you learn a lot about what IS but not WHY.
So the women who have abortians have a higher risk of brereast cancer.
Do they have a different diet? Do they smoke?
Do they drink more or less? Do they live in areas where the air is dirtier? Do they work at jobs that expose them to different chemicals? Do they have sex earlier or later?
Do the reach sexual maturity sooner or later?
You can show the odds of being imprisoned for a felony increase with pork comsumption but that does not mean it causes it.
As the saying goes - There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
posted on August 26, 2001 08:59:03 AM new
Abortion and breast cancer - Some studies say they are related, some say they aren't. And the abortion debate continues with each side quoting it's studies and facts.
I personally feel it's a womans health issue. Why not let the woman who this will affect make that decision. But how can she if the subject isn't even brought to her attention? That being that they *may* be at higher risk if they have an abortion. Just like on packs of cigarettes that used to say "may be hazardous to your health".
There are pro-lifers and pro-choice who are on both sides of this question/issue.
To me this subject is like the HRT (harmone replacement therapy) controversy. There have been many studies that have looked into whether taking harmones increases a womans chance of getting breast and uterine cancer (postmenopausal). Those studies don't agree either. Some find no risk, some find small risk (after 10 - 15 years of use) and some studies show that short term HRT shows no increase of risk.
From the World Conference on Breast Cancer:
"Today, women in general are exposed to higher levels of estrogen during their lifetime than was the case in previous generations. It is believed that women now face excess levels of both natural and synthetic estrogens, increasing their risk of breast cancer. Prolonged use of the birth control pills, late or lack of pregnancies and breast-feeding, INDUCED TERMINATION OF PREGNANCIES, a diet high in fat, meat or dairy products, and hormone replacement therapy following menopause, all are cited as risk factors for increased estrogens and breast cancer." (Emphasis added.)
Remember: Reproductive rights are meaningless without the right of women to know all the consequences of the choices they may make.
posted on August 26, 2001 09:09:23 AM new
Oh my, so that's why my mother had breast cancer, I'll be sure to tell her that! Of course she'll respond by saying what a crazy idea that is. I'm an only child, and that was not by my mother's choice.
posted on August 26, 2001 09:22:57 AM new
The world conference on breast cancer ended without a report or conclusion issued on any cause or preventative plan for the cancers. You may have found a quote from a specific paper presented for consideration at the conference, as there were a great many presented over the four day meeting, but do not try to present your ( actually unverified) excerpt as a conclusion. You can bold all day, but that don't make what you say true.
posted on August 26, 2001 10:09:22 AM new
The first World Conference on Breast Cancer was held on 7-97, in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
A year later, in the fall of 1998, the World Conference published its Global Action Plan Report, in which the organization outlined its agenda for the ultimate eradication of breast cancer. Under the subject of risk factors related to hormones, the Report said what I quoted.
What I was pointing out is that in these conferences (2nd one was held in 7-99 and there was to be another held this month) they are looking into *all* subjects that might cause breast cancer.
posted on August 26, 2001 10:30:57 AM new
Of which almost all are unconfirmed. For example, in spite of claimed risk factors no adequate answer is found to explain how it is that Japan has one of if not the highest incident of induced termination of pregnancy while also suffering the lowest rate of breast cancers in the world.
All of that aside, the purpose of the initial post to this thread was clearly political and not medical. If a concern was for the well being or awareness of women in the area of breast cancers was to be expressed then why not post the easily found compilation of all suspected risks?
No, instead we get overused dogma consisting of distorted facts and selected statistics presented to serve the agenda of a particular grouping who very likely care less about breast cancer than about the furtherance of their beliefs.
posted on August 26, 2001 11:10:36 AM new
kraftdinner, that would certainly tie up the courts.
When I read about the nuns having a higher incidence of breast cancer, the link there was because they don't breast feed. So, how 'bout this: women who have abortions have fewer children. Fewer children means less breast feeding and maybe this is why the link between abortions and breast cancer seems possible.
Statistics can be funny things. It's called probabilities. It's not called certainties.
If I smoke, I'll probably suffer health problems. But George Burns lived forever.
If you sleep around, it's more probable that you'll get an std than if you don't. But virgins have been infected their very first time out.
Another issue in this is that abortion may be the only thing being counted. Was there a group who'd had abortions AND a family history vs. a group who'd had abortions but had no family history?
I'm always very leery of statistics/probabilities being thrown out when I don't know how the study was done, how the sample was chosen etc.
posted on August 26, 2001 11:33:45 AM new
krs - Of which almost all are unconfirmed. Many studies are unconfirmed but people are still using or taking a certain products or therapies. I remember my OBGYN explaining that my generation is the ginea pigs for the HRT therapy. The results (data) will be obtained from my generations usage.
That's why I used the example of HRT. There's no agreement about it's usage being safe. BUT many women are on it. They are informed of the risks before taking it. Point is women were warned....as I thing they should be about any risk.
I personally am glad that the World Conference is open to the fact that abortions *could* be *one* of the risk factors of breast cancer. I personally don't think it will stop women from getting abortions. Just like they are already made aware of all the other risk factors of having an abortion.
posted on August 26, 2001 12:14:00 PM new
Maybe we ought to just have mandantory college courses for everyone older than tweleve listing out What May or May Not Cause Breast Cancer!
The course would list three categories:
a) Potential Breast Cancer Causing Factors Positively Identified.
b) Potential Breast Cancer Causing Factors Somewhat Known.
c) Potential Breast Cancer Causing Factors Bizaarly Cross-Referenced from Unbelievable Statstics Not At All Verified.
Then, after the Four-Year Degree in the Potential Causes of Breast Cancer is fininshed, only then can a woman have sex and make a choice if she gets pregnant.
posted on August 26, 2001 01:08:39 PM new
...and let's not forget that "Decaf Coffee" causes Cancer...Oooops! No! We were wrong!......also Do Not Eat EGGS more than once a week: they cause HEART ATTACKS due to Cholesterol...Ooooops! NO! We were WRONG AGAIN! please, we beg you! BUY OUR EGGS! eat, eat.........
I view this new "evidence" about abortion/cancer as a cheap shot statement, and a degrading one: acording to this, ANY woman who has experience breast cancer MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE HAD A ABORTION?...I am a two-time breast cancer survivor...and I can assure you, I have not had abortions...Do I need to have a tatoo on my forehead stating "I am a GOOD GIRL"???
This is the type of malignant information wich can totally destroy a person's moral fiber...Lumping people into various categories is wrong and self-serving...
posted on August 26, 2001 02:08:53 PM new
I heard/read this somewhere, and I cannot remember where. The female body prepares itself for pregnancy, when a pregnancy is abruptly ended, by abortion or a miscarriage, it supposedly plays havoc with a woman's body, something to do with hormones and such, thus the higher incidence of breast cancer among those women who have had miscarriages or abortions. Sorry, I do not have all day to spend scouring the internet for links to support what I heard/read.
posted on August 26, 2001 02:37:22 PM new
Here's a different senario to think about:
I have never had an abortion. I had two pregnancies ~ one was an excellent experience with a very scary delivery ending in an emergency c-section. The second was a horrible pregnancy with a scheduled c-section that I narrowly survived after being in surgery over 3 hours.
I now have two children that I raise virtually by myself. I have been warned that I would probably NOT survive another delivery.
Although my tubes have been tied (and part of one taken) there is always the remote possibility that I could once again become pregnant.
Now, if I get pregnant again - despite my efforts not to have that happen - do I choose to carry the child to term and lose my life at the delivery, leaving two little girls motherless (not to mention the third child) ~ or do I have an abortion?
I'm sorry, folks, but unless you have carried a child under the circumstances that I have - and suffer the consequences from that pregnancy that I do ~ please do not legislate what choices I have for my family.
BUT despite this ... remember that I love my children - they are my world.
posted on August 26, 2001 03:21:19 PM new
Gosh Shosh - I view this new "evidence" about abortion/cancer as a cheap shot statement, and a degrading one: acording to this, ANY woman who has experience breast cancer MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE HAD A ABORTION?. Where did you read or hear that? I didn't.
hcross - Yes, what you've shared is very much what 'the other side' is saying. And some studies are saying it's not the same thing when there is a spontanious abortion, only when there's an abortion. I know when I worked in the OBGYN dept and a doctor thought a woman might be loosing a pregnancy, they watched to see if her harmonal level increased or decreased. If it was decreasing she was losing the pregnancy.
From what I've read it's all related to the change in harmones. There are many variables....including whether or not it's a first pregnancy, the mother's age at time of conception, etc.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 26, 2001 03:31 PM ]
posted on August 26, 2001 03:21:55 PM new
What I like MOST about AW is that many of us here have real stories.
Real lives.
Can give a human face, however disembodied, to our opinions and our travails.
Whether we agree or not, I care about what you have to say.
Sometimes you get angry, or expose more than you meant.
I come away knowing more about what real people really feel, and sometimes I examine myself a little more closely, to make sure that I have reason to believe the way I do.
Then some of you are just blantant rhetoric and not-so-hidden agendas. You bring out a depth of emotion I wish I didn't have and am grateful that I have the self-control to keep in check.
