• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abortion doesn't cause breast cancer

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Here is EVERY scientific medical article posted on the medical abstracts list (medline) found through a search in OVID, covering the time from now, back 5 years. (Entire abstracts and references available)

The studies are

1: Lash (6/04) – unknown number of women (all women giving birth 1987-1999 in MA).
Epidemiological study.
Finding: Abortion protects against breast cancer in women who gave birth at least once.

2: Beral (3/04) –53 studies comparing the prospective studies (44,000 breast cancer cases) and retroactive studies (39,000 breast cancer cases).
Meta-analysis of prospective and retroactive studies.
Finding: No evidence of spontaneous or induced abortion causing breast cancer. Older retroactive studies were imprecise (These are the ones the PL like to cite) “yielded misleading results.”

3: Palmer (3/04) – Black Women’s Health Study, 348 cases of breast cancer.
Prospective cohort study.
Finding: induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk in African-American women.

4: ACOG (8/03, 11/03) – review of all studies.
Review article
Finding: studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.

5: Paoletti (8/03) – 100,000 women, 2600+ breast cancer cases.
Prospective cohort study.
Finding: there is no relationship between breast cancer and induced abortion but that an association with spontaneous abortion is possible and may depend on menopausal status

6: Becher (2/03) – 706 breast cancer patients.
Case control study.
Finding: Genetics were biggest risk factor, multiple pregnancies and long-duration breastfeeding were most protective factors. History of abortion and age of menses had no effect.

7: Mahue (3/03) – 744 breast cancer patients.
Retroactive study.
Finding: Breast cancer after giving birth not related to miscarriage or induced abortion. Among women who never gave birth, risk was lower with history of an induced abortion (“although the risk estimate was imprecise.)” “Risk declined as the number of induced abortions increased (P = 0.04). Our results do not support the hypothesis that induced abortion or miscarriage increase the breast cancer risk of young women.”

8: Erlandsson – (2/03). All Swedish women giving birth 1973-1991.
Prospective case-control study.
Finding: “In conclusion, neither a history of induced nor spontaneous abortions is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Our data suggest a protective effect of pregnancies regardless of outcome.”

Now, note this study. It SPECIFICALLY investigated the hormonal effect. What they specifically studied was this:

“”””It has been suggested that abortions leave the breast epithelium in a proliferative state with an increased susceptibility to carcinogenesis.””””

In other words, that hormonal effects on the breast from inducing abortions or from interrupting pregnancy makes the woman more susceptible to breast cancer. And, of course, their finding STILL showed this not to be the case. This was a case-control study, as accurate as they get. Those of you who question the hormone issue, go read this study.


9: Ye (10/02). 267,040 women, 652 (or more)
Prospective, randomized case-control study.
Breast cancer not associated with abortions, with number of abortions, or with abortions after first birth. They have this comment, though” Few women had undergone an abortion after 13 weeks gestation or before their first child. Although increases in risk were observed in such women, they were not statistically significant and could have been due to recall bias.”

10: Chaudry (4/02) – 245 African-American families.
Prospective epidemiological study of specific breast cancer gene.
Finding: “This putative gene was found to interact significantly with age at menarche (P = 0.048), and an interaction with a history of spontaneous abortions was suggested (P = 0.08). A late age at menarche increased BC risk in gene carriers but had a protective effect in non-gene carriers. A history of spontaneous abortions had a protective effect in gene carriers and increased BC risk in non-gene carriers.”

11: Davidson (12/01) – Review of all articles.
Review Article
Finding: “Over recent years, concerns have been raised about a possible causal relation between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer”….” refuting this hypothesis and concludes that there are, to date, insufficient data to justify warning women of future breast-cancer risk when counselling them about abortion
This article ALSO mainly looked at the issue of hormonal changes

12: Sanderson (6/01) – 1459 breast cancer patients
Prospective epidemiological study
Finding: there was no relation between ever having had an induced abortion and breast cancer

13: Newcomb (10/00). 252 breast cancer patients
Prospective case-control study.
Finding: No connection between breast cancer and induced or spontaneous abortion in women, whether they ever gave birth or not.

14: Tang (3/00) 463 breast cancer patients and controls.
Case-controlled cohort study
Finding: Induced abortion in women who later give birth does not cause risk for breast cancer.

And for good meassure, here is that Cancer Society link again:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/c...tion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

What the Experts Say

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

Breast cancer risk is transiently (temporarily) increased after a term pregnancy [resulting in the birth of a living child].

Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.


The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).
 

SHodges

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I've never once heard of anyone saying that it did. I had no idea it was a "risk".
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
SHodges said:
I've never once heard of anyone saying that it did. I had no idea it was a "risk".
It isn't, but many prolife sites claim that abortion indeed does cause breast cancer. Start looking at your favorite anti-choice sites and search on breast cancer. You will be amazed how many of them make this false claim despite the solid research against it. They are prolie sites, not prolife.
 

SHodges

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have no favorite anti-choice sites, I'd just as soon avoid them, so I'll take your word for it. I've never heard a pro-lifer talk of the womans health, usually just stuff about spirits and superstition and how evil it is to kill a collection of cells.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Here is EVERY scientific medical article posted on the medical abstracts list (medline) found through a search in OVID, covering the time from now, back 5 years. (Entire abstracts and references available)

The studies are

1: Lash (6/04) – unknown number of women (all women giving birth 1987-1999 in MA).
Epidemiological study.
Finding: Abortion protects against breast cancer in women who gave birth at least once.
no info regarding women who had abortions and breast cancer but who had no children.


2: Beral (3/04) –53 studies comparing the prospective studies (44,000 breast cancer cases) and retroactive studies (39,000 breast cancer cases).
Meta-analysis of prospective and retroactive studies.
Finding: No evidence of spontaneous or induced abortion causing breast cancer. Older retroactive studies were imprecise (These are the ones the PL like to cite) “yielded misleading results.”
Beral V. Bull D. Doll R. Peto R. Reeves G. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries.[see comment]. [Review] [85 refs] [Journal Article. Multicenter Study. Review] Lancet. 363(9414):1007-16, 2004 Mar 27.

1. ...and age at first birth...

2. Because the extent of under-reporting of past induced abortions might be influenced by whether or not women had been diagnosed with breast cancer, results of the studies--including a total of 44000 women with breast cancer--that used prospective information on abortion (ie, information that had been recorded before the diagnosis of breast cancer) were considered separately from results of the studies--including 39000 women with the disease--that used retrospective information (recorded after the diagnosis of breast cancer).

3. Collectively, the studies of breast cancer with retrospective recording of induced abortion yielded misleading results, possibly because women who had developed breast cancer were, on average, more likely than other women to disclose previous induced abortions.


1. See my explanation above in LASH.
2. A very large portion of the studies (nearly HALF) were “considered separately” due to a lack of pre-cancer diagnosis recorded proof of abortion—supposedly eliminating the “recall bias” factor.
3. Personally—I’m having a hard time understanding how women who have cancer are MORE likely to be honest than women who don’t have cancer....except that that is very convenient to SOME studies that get discounted based on “recall bias”—even though several of the studies you cited rely on the SAME type of information gathering processes.





7: Mahue (3/03) – 744 breast cancer patients.
Retroactive study.
Finding: Breast cancer after giving birth not related to miscarriage or induced abortion. Among women who never gave birth, risk was lower with history of an induced abortion (“although the risk estimate was imprecise.)” “Risk declined as the number of induced abortions increased (P = 0.04). Our results do not support the hypothesis that induced abortion or miscarriage increase the breast cancer risk of young women.”

Mahue-Giangreco M. Ursin G. Sullivan-Halley J. Bernstein L. Induced abortion, miscarriage, and breast cancer risk of young women. [Journal Article] Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 12(3):209-14, 2003 Mar.

1. findings depend heavily on the comparison group and that the use of parous women as a reference group for nulliparous women may artificially inflate risk.
744 patients < or =40 years of age

2. In-person interviews were conducted to obtain a detailed reproductive history.


1. The AGE of the women should be considered a "quite young" population to be studying--I wonder how many of those women got BC in their middle and late 40s, 50s, 60s......??????
2. It’s hypocritical to discount one study based on recall bias—and then use the same sort of study to SUPPORT your point of view. Either it is NOT VALID or it IS VALID—Again—it’s the same “recall bias” question—why is okay for studies that support the conclusion that there is no ABC link—but NOT OKAY for findings that conclude there IS a link?



9: Ye (10/02). 267,040 women, 652 (or more)
Prospective, randomized case-control study.
Breast cancer not associated with abortions, with number of abortions, or with abortions after first birth. They have this comment, though” Few women had undergone an abortion after 13 weeks gestation or before their first child. Although increases in risk were observed in such women, they were not statistically significant and could have been due to recall bias.”
Note purple text in quote above

10: Chaudry (4/02) – 245 African-American families.
Prospective epidemiological study of specific breast cancer gene.
Finding: “This putative gene was found to interact significantly with age at menarche (P = 0.048), and an interaction with a history of spontaneous abortions was suggested (P = 0.08). A late age at menarche increased BC risk in gene carriers but had a protective effect in non-gene carriers. A history of spontaneous abortions had a protective effect in gene carriers and increased BC risk in non-gene carriers.”
Note purple text in quote above



12: Sanderson (6/01) – 1459 breast cancer patients
Prospective epidemiological study
Finding: there was no relation between ever having had an induced abortion and breast cancer
Sanderson M. Shu XO. Jin F. Dai Q. Wen W. Hua Y. Gao YT. Zheng W. Abortion history and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. [Journal Article] International Journal of Cancer. 92(6):899-905, 2001 Jun 15.

In-person interviews were completed with 1,459 incident breast cancer cases ascertained through a population-based cancer registry,


This is a SURVEY (“response rates”) thus—once again the hypocritical okay to have “recall bias” if it supports a preferred conclusion





And for good meassure.........check this out...
LONG-TERM PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES
OF INDUCED ABORTION:
A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
John M. Thorp, Jr., MD
Department of Epidemiology

..........
INDUCED ABORTION AND SUBSEQUENT BREAST CANCER
As described earlier, we have addressed the linkages between induced abortion and breast neoplasia
differently from the other topics. Rather than replicate the tables and works of numerous other authors we have
summarized four review articles(81,82,83,84), one of which conducted a meta-analysis.(83) (Table 6) Two of the
four reviewers(81,82)found no association between induced abortion and breast cancer, while one found a “small to
non-significant effect”.(84) The sole meta-analysis by Brind et al reported a summary odds ratio for breast cancer
of 1.3 (95% C1 1.2,1.4) in patients with a previous induced abortion.(83) They concluded that induced abortion is
an independent risk factor for breast carcinoma.(83)
All the reviews comment on the potential for bias in data collection, presentation, and analysis emphasizing
in particular the sensitive nature of abortion with its potential for under-reporting. All the reviewers acknowledge
that these potential biases could obscure real relations or create spurious associations. In addition reviewers
comment on the high likelihood of a “file drawer” effect with pertinent studies being withheld from publication due
to the highly politicized atmosphere in which their findings would be reported. None of the reviewers seems to be
comfortable with the scope and content of the current literature. Each advocates for the analysis of prospectively
gathered data that link known pregnancy outcomes to subsequent neoplastic events.(28,85) Brind et al have clearly
demonstrated the need for such studies by showing that despite the relatively low increase in risk they discovered,
the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion would ensure a substantial impact on women’s health
if their conclusions are correct.(83) Weed and Kramer have thoughtfully considered the ways in which the
conclusions one draws on this “thorny” issue are influenced by the moral values each reviewer brings to these
complex data.(85) Nonetheless, a statistically significant positive association between induced abortion and
breast cancer cannot be easily dismissed as Brind’s is the only quantitative review.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...erm+Physical+Psychological+Health+thorp&hl=en
 
Last edited:

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Abortion may not "cause" breast cancer as in "abortion = Breast Cancer", but it contributes to the likelihood of developing breast cancer--like smoking contributes to the likelihood of lung cancer.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Hate to disappoint you Flick, but the voices in your head aren't a reliable source.

Something can cause anything. Woo freaking hoo, we all have to die one day.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
Hate to disappoint you Flick, but the voices in your head aren't a reliable source.

Something can cause anything. Woo freaking hoo, we all have to die one day.
I'm guessing you're talking at me--since "Flick" is closest to my name....Ummmm--those are the sources steen supplied--so they're not valid? Okay.:rofl
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And those sources aren't the ones I'm talking about.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
And those sources aren't the ones I'm talking about.
So you don't have a relevent point to the discussion?

Bullets can cause brain damage...you don't go shootin' yourself in the head because "we all have to die one day."

Your's is an inane comment--pointless, then.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
*pet* My point was painfully obvious.

What, my comment's inane compared to that?! :lol: What part of "we all have to die one day" do you disagree with? Every day there's some study that says cell phones cause brain tumours, chocolate causes bowel cancer or cabbage causes infertility. Do you listen to all of it?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
*pet* My point was painfully obvious.

What, my comment's inane compared to that?! :lol: What part of "we all have to die one day" do you disagree with? Every day there's some study that says cell phones cause brain tumours, chocolate causes bowel cancer or cabbage causes infertility. Do you listen to all of it?
"that" was to demonstrate how inane your comment was.

Its contribution to the likelihood of breast cancer isn't the ONLY reason not to have an abortion--it's just one of MANY MANY reasons that taken as a whole slam the door on the sanity of the practice--even for those that think personhood is a debatable position for the embryo.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
How about this - being forced to have an unwanted child may cause depression, anxiety and even psychosis in the mother. Or does her health suddenly not matter anymore?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
How about this - being forced to have an unwanted child may cause depression, anxiety and even psychosis in the mother. Or does her health suddenly not matter anymore?
You know that having an abortion can do the same--and more often and WORSE!

And forced? No one is FORCED to have sex unless it's rape--then it's a crime and the guilty party should be punished--NOT the life that may be created via the crime.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
Abortion may not "cause" breast cancer as in "abortion = Breast Cancer", but it contributes to the likelihood of developing breast cancer--like smoking contributes to the likelihood of lung cancer.
Your claim is false.

I shall deal with your previous post, INCLUDING how many of the studies you skipped, later

Abortion does not contribute to breast cancer. The data solidly disproves that prolife lie.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
Its contribution to the likelihood of breast cancer isn't the ONLY reason not to have an abortion--
But then, there isn't any such contribution.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
You know that having an abortion can do the same--and more often and WORSE!
Another outright lie. Both Depression, anxiety and psychosis is much more prevalent in women who have given birth. Could you please cease making such outright false claims, thanks? I know I have pointed this out before, but it seems to not sink in, so could you please pay attention this time?
And forced? No one is FORCED to have sex unless it's rape--then it's a crime and the guilty party should be punished--NOT the life that may be created via the crime.
sex is not consent to pregnancy. Yes, I know you prolifers continue to claim this in your usual irrelevant fashion, but it still doesn't make it real.
 

Dogger807

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
232
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Felicity said:
no info regarding women who had abortions and breast cancer but who had no children.




Beral V. Bull D. Doll R. Peto R. Reeves G. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries.[see comment]. [Review] [85 refs] [Journal Article. Multicenter Study. Review] Lancet. 363(9414):1007-16, 2004 Mar 27.

1. ...and age at first birth...

2. Because the extent of under-reporting of past induced abortions might be influenced by whether or not women had been diagnosed with breast cancer, results of the studies--including a total of 44000 women with breast cancer--that used prospective information on abortion (ie, information that had been recorded before the diagnosis of breast cancer) were considered separately from results of the studies--including 39000 women with the disease--that used retrospective information (recorded after the diagnosis of breast cancer).

3. Collectively, the studies of breast cancer with retrospective recording of induced abortion yielded misleading results, possibly because women who had developed breast cancer were, on average, more likely than other women to disclose previous induced abortions.


1. See my explanation above in LASH.
2. A very large portion of the studies (nearly HALF) were “considered separately” due to a lack of pre-cancer diagnosis recorded proof of abortion—supposedly eliminating the “recall bias” factor.
3. Personally—I’m having a hard time understanding how women who have cancer are MORE likely to be honest than women who don’t have cancer....except that that is very convenient to SOME studies that get discounted based on “recall bias”—even though several of the studies you cited rely on the SAME type of information gathering processes.








Mahue-Giangreco M. Ursin G. Sullivan-Halley J. Bernstein L. Induced abortion, miscarriage, and breast cancer risk of young women. [Journal Article] Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 12(3):209-14, 2003 Mar.

1. findings depend heavily on the comparison group and that the use of parous women as a reference group for nulliparous women may artificially inflate risk.
744 patients < or =40 years of age

2. In-person interviews were conducted to obtain a detailed reproductive history.


1. The AGE of the women should be considered a "quite young" population to be studying--I wonder how many of those women got BC in their middle and late 40s, 50s, 60s......??????
2. It’s hypocritical to discount one study based on recall bias—and then use the same sort of study to SUPPORT your point of view. Either it is NOT VALID or it IS VALID—Again—it’s the same “recall bias” question—why is okay for studies that support the conclusion that there is no ABC link—but NOT OKAY for findings that conclude there IS a link?





Note purple text in quote above


Note purple text in quote above





Sanderson M. Shu XO. Jin F. Dai Q. Wen W. Hua Y. Gao YT. Zheng W. Abortion history and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. [Journal Article] International Journal of Cancer. 92(6):899-905, 2001 Jun 15.

In-person interviews were completed with 1,459 incident breast cancer cases ascertained through a population-based cancer registry,


This is a SURVEY (“response rates”) thus—once again the hypocritical okay to have “recall bias” if it supports a preferred conclusion





And for good meassure.........check this out...
LONG-TERM PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES
OF INDUCED ABORTION:
A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
John M. Thorp, Jr., MD
Department of Epidemiology

..........
INDUCED ABORTION AND SUBSEQUENT BREAST CANCER
As described earlier, we have addressed the linkages between induced abortion and breast neoplasia
differently from the other topics. Rather than replicate the tables and works of numerous other authors we have
summarized four review articles(81,82,83,84), one of which conducted a meta-analysis.(83) (Table 6) Two of the
four reviewers(81,82)found no association between induced abortion and breast cancer, while one found a “small to
non-significant effect”.(84) The sole meta-analysis by Brind et al reported a summary odds ratio for breast cancer
of 1.3 (95% C1 1.2,1.4) in patients with a previous induced abortion.(83) They concluded that induced abortion is
an independent risk factor for breast carcinoma.(83)
All the reviews comment on the potential for bias in data collection, presentation, and analysis emphasizing
in particular the sensitive nature of abortion with its potential for under-reporting. All the reviewers acknowledge
that these potential biases could obscure real relations or create spurious associations. In addition reviewers
comment on the high likelihood of a “file drawer” effect with pertinent studies being withheld from publication due
to the highly politicized atmosphere in which their findings would be reported. None of the reviewers seems to be
comfortable with the scope and content of the current literature. Each advocates for the analysis of prospectively
gathered data that link known pregnancy outcomes to subsequent neoplastic events.(28,85) Brind et al have clearly
demonstrated the need for such studies by showing that despite the relatively low increase in risk they discovered,
the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion would ensure a substantial impact on women’s health
if their conclusions are correct.(83) Weed and Kramer have thoughtfully considered the ways in which the
conclusions one draws on this “thorny” issue are influenced by the moral values each reviewer brings to these
complex data.(85) Nonetheless, a statistically significant positive association between induced abortion and
breast cancer cannot be easily dismissed as Brind’s is the only quantitative review.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SmIWPdXimogJ:www.ncrtl.org/images/concept/evidencereview.pdf+Long-Term+Physical+Psychological+Health+thorp&hl=en
Read the study and read your replies to the original post. My suggestion to you is to do more research. You've done nothing to prove your side of the debate. Nice bit of cut and paste at the end. Definitely shows the biased view you intended. The review it comes from shows an exceptable error margin to state that there is no correlation.

Now I had not heard the presumption that induced abortion cause breast cancer before today so I can't claim to be an expert on the subject. I have been blissfully ignorant to this approach. From what I've read so far it seems nothing more that the old "Masterbation causes blindness." approach. So until provided with evidence and studies pointing otherwise my stance is going to mirror the American cancer society on this one.

"The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of human populations and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints among many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer, in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms, even when both the exposure and the disease are of great importance and interest to us all. At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer."

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/c..._or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Your claim is false.

I shall deal with your previous post, INCLUDING how many of the studies you skipped, later

Abortion does not contribute to breast cancer. The data solidly disproves that prolife lie.

Don't bother....2 of the studies you quoted flat out SAY there is a link...you may consider the link to be insignificant--fine...my point is there IS evidence of a link. To claim the case is closed is to gamble with women's health.

YE:
abortion after 13 weeks gestation or before their first child. Although increases in risk were observed in such women, they were not statistically significant and could have been due to recall bias.”

CHAUDRY:
A history of spontaneous abortions had a protective effect in gene carriers and increased BC risk in non-gene carriers.”


Those two studies of yours express that there is a link...

My other point was you cannot disregard studies that demonstrate a link between BC and abortion that are subject to recall bias and then but consider valid those studies that conclude there is no link that are subject to the same bias--either it is valid or it is not. If it's valid...I could post several studies showing the link and you would have to accept them as valid sources.
 
Last edited:

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
dogger807 said:
So until provided with evidence and studies pointing otherwise my stance is going to mirror the American cancer society on this one.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/c..._or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_misreports_funds.htm

"The ACS track record raises grave concerns about special interests and conflicts of interest, in sharp opposition to the public interest (Appendix I). Dr. John Durant, former ASCO (American Society for Clinical Oncology) executive, president (awarded the 2002 ASCO Presidential U. S. Cancer Fighter of the Year award), charged: "It has always seemed to me that this was an issue of control by the ACS over the cancer agenda. They are protecting their own fundraising capacity" from competition by survivor groups (quoted in 43). These conflicts of interest extend to the personal. The NDC Legislative Committee cochair, Dr. DeVita, is board chair of CancerSource. com, a Web site promoting the ACS Consumers' Guide to Cancer Drugs; other Legislative Committee members also serve on the board. These members have thus developed their own special interests in a publicly funded forum.

An increasing proportion of ACS revenues come from the pharmaceutical, cancer drug, mammography film and machine, and biotechnology industries. This is reflected in generous ACS allocations for research on highly profitable patented cancer drugs and aggressive promotion of pre-menopausal mammography."




There is reason to question the American Cancer Society's motivations.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Another outright lie. Both Depression, anxiety and psychosis is much more prevalent in women who have given birth. .

Perhaps that's due to RECALL BIAS!!!!
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Or perhaps not? What, so all sources besides those which suit your argument can be ignored on the grounds of recall bias? :lol:

10 percent of women who give birth suffer from post-natal depression, and presumably most of them wanted to give birth in the first place, rather than being made to do so against their will. It's not hard to imagine that in such cases the incidence of mental illness would be much, much higher.

Felicity said:
You know that having an abortion can do the same--and more often and WORSE!

And forced? No one is FORCED to have sex unless it's rape--then it's a crime and the guilty party should be punished--NOT the life that may be created via the crime.
Right. So a woman who's been brutally attacked should then be forced to carry and give birth to the child of the man who traumatized you? Gee, compassion just oozes out of you. I'd bet a month's pay you'd be singing a different tune if it were to happen to you or someone you love.

Besides, sex should automatically equal babies? Give me a bloody break. We're not living in the Middle Ages.
 
Last edited:

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
Or perhaps not? What, so all sources besides those which suit your argument can be ignored on the grounds of recall bias? :lol:
no...that's steen's claim.

Besides, sex should automatically equal babies?
Where do you get that? If you're having sex, it's POSSIBLE.
 

Dogger807

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
232
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Felicity said:
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_misreports_funds.htm

"The ACS track record raises grave concerns about special interests and conflicts of interest, in sharp opposition to the public interest (Appendix I). Dr. John Durant, former ASCO (American Society for Clinical Oncology) executive, president (awarded the 2002 ASCO Presidential U. S. Cancer Fighter of the Year award), charged: "It has always seemed to me that this was an issue of control by the ACS over the cancer agenda. They are protecting their own fundraising capacity" from competition by survivor groups (quoted in 43). These conflicts of interest extend to the personal. The NDC Legislative Committee cochair, Dr. DeVita, is board chair of CancerSource. com, a Web site promoting the ACS Consumers' Guide to Cancer Drugs; other Legislative Committee members also serve on the board. These members have thus developed their own special interests in a publicly funded forum.

An increasing proportion of ACS revenues come from the pharmaceutical, cancer drug, mammography film and machine, and biotechnology industries. This is reflected in generous ACS allocations for research on highly profitable patented cancer drugs and aggressive promotion of pre-menopausal mammography."




There is reason to question the American Cancer Society's motivations.
Well you prove quite capable of mud slinging. Did you want to be a politician when you grow up?

Every organization has corruption at some level. This supports your hypothesis how?

Where are your clinical studies supporting your hypothesis? I grow tired of the self rigtheous thinking their morals are the only true morals and thus have the right to bend the facts as they see fit. Is there a study showing a correlation between abortion and breast cancer, with an excepable margin for error? Has there been refuting studies? Do your research or concede defeat.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You wanna explain this to me then....

YE:
abortion after 13 weeks gestation or before their first child. Although increases in risk were observed in such women, they were not statistically significant and could have been due to recall bias.”
Doesn't that say increased risk was observed? It was in China for Cripes sake--they have forced abortion and sterilization as a governmental policy! So of course few women aborted after 13 weeks --and BC usually occurs in later life--so of course there were few women who got it prior to their first child. AND STILL there was significant enough of a finding that the study had to mention it even though the numbers were low of the women who fit the profile.

CHAUDRY:
A history of spontaneous abortions had a protective effect in gene carriers and increased BC risk in non-gene carriers.”
That seems pretty clear.



http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/con...6f480926c525178457006bc1&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjou...cfac812660aabe36436256b0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
 
Top Bottom