• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

vergiss said:
Pot, meet kettle.

As I said, try to stay within the vicinity of the topic at hand. The my post before you sarcastically went on about abortion being pot luck was specifically addressing spontaneous miscarriage, and the link it may have to breast cancer. It had nothing to do with induced abortion.

Do you not understand that the difference between abortion and miscarriage is that one is an "accident" of nature and the other is a willful action done by a person? That is what I was mocking in the "oops" post....

If you "can't" limit your risk due to accident...so...(and there is debate on whether miscarriage is equivalent in the risk factor)

But if you CAN.....why not limit your risk?...
 
I think it's fair to say that most women who've deliberately had children have had a miscarriage at some point. Therefore, if I'm going to avoid any risk, why be half-hearted and not avoid ALL risk?
 
vergiss said:
I think it's fair to say that most women who've deliberately had children have had a miscarriage at some point. Therefore, if I'm going to avoid any risk, why be half-hearted and not avoid ALL risk?

I have 5 kids--no abortions, no miscarriages.

Abortion can contribute to the incedence of micarriage and premature birth, too.
 
...and also...why ever get out of bed do anything--hell, you could choke on a turkey sandwich--why eat?...accidents happen--you can't avoid ALL risk, but you can limit your risks.
 
Exactly - don't like your life stressing about the remote possibility that something will give you bowel cancer or a stroke. Apparently even burnt food is carcinogenic, but that doesn't stop me eating toast for breakfast.

I said most women, not all. You're very fortunate.
 
vergiss said:
Exactly - don't like your life stressing about the remote possibility that something will give you bowel cancer or a stroke. Apparently even burnt food is carcinogenic, but that doesn't stop me eating toast for breakfast.

I said most women, not all. You're very fortunate.

Yes...I know I am blessed...

Here's the deal with the breast cancer/abortion risk--I agree with the point you make above, but the ABC link is just another factor that should be taken into account when considering the abortion debate. I think there are WAY better arguments against abortion than the little bit of risk for cancer that abortion may contribute to--but it is something to consider...and it just gets my goat when people claim that science has ABSOLUTELY answered the question--when it has not. It is something to consider in the debate and the preponderence of "things to consider" concerning abortion should lead a person to their stance...the absence of definative proof on the subject concerning the medical issues and the philosophical issues I think suggests if you aren't sure...you should err on the side of life.
 
Felicity said:
I have 5 kids--no abortions, no miscarriages.
That is almost certainly a false claim, as 70% +/- of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry.
Abortion can contribute to the incedence of micarriage and premature birth, too.
I would love to see the Scientific confirmation for that claim. But also, live birth contributes MUCH MORE to these risks. Did you "forget" to point out that fact?
 
Abortion STILL Don't cause breast cancer

Felicity said:
...and also...why ever get out of bed do anything--hell, you could choke on a turkey sandwich--why eat?...accidents happen--you can't avoid ALL risk, but you can limit your risks.
Yes, you can. Mortality from giving birth is much higher than the mortality from having an elective abortion. So if you truly are concerned about risks, you would abort.
 
Felicity said:
Yes...I know I am blessed...

Here's the deal with the breast cancer/abortion risk--I agree with the point you make above, but the ABC link is just another factor that should be taken into account when considering the abortion debate.
As abortions don't contribute the breast cancer, there is no need to consider it any more than we need to consider the Martian death ray's impact on breast cancer.

I think there are WAY better arguments against abortion than the little bit of risk for cancer that abortion may contribute to--
There is no risk. The data proved it. The data is at the start of this tread.
but it is something to consider...
Nope.
and it just gets my goat when people claim that science has ABSOLUTELY answered the question--when it has not.
Yes, it has.
YOU ARE LYING.
It is something to consider in the debate and the preponderence of "things to consider" concerning abortion should lead a person to their stance...
The only thing such a debate will show is how prolifers are willing to lie and claim that abortion has an effect on breast cancer when the research unequivocally proves no connection.

So it proves prolifers to be liars. Not that this in any way surprises us. You have again amply shown that prolifers are willing to push any lie that they think will help their argument.
the absence of definative proof on the subject concerning the medical issues and the philosophical issues I think suggests if you aren't sure...you should err on the side of life.
You are lying., There is definite proof. It is provided in the research studies provided at the beginning of this tread. Again, if you are actually willing to deal with the evidence instead of just lying about it, I will be happy to provide full references, and we can then look at the actual minutia of the studies.
 
steen said:
That is almost certainly a false claim, as 70% +/- of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry.
What...you want a conference with my OB? I am blessed. I don't deny that I may have miscarried without knowing it...but how do you prove that?


I would love to see the Scientific confirmation for that claim. But also, live birth contributes MUCH MORE to these risks. Did you "forget" to point out that fact?
Oh...go find it yourself....you know it's there....
 
Re: Abortion STILL Don't cause breast cancer

steen said:
Yes, you can. Mortality from giving birth is much higher than the mortality from having an elective abortion. So if you truly are concerned about risks, you would abort.
No...you wouldn't have sex. And steen...you know abortion is under reported...the CDC even admits it....how much more under reporting goes on with deaths that can be directly traced to an association with an abortion?
 
Felicity said:
Steen said:
That is almost certainly a false claim, as 70% +/- of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry.
What...you want a conference with my OB? I am blessed. I don't deny that I may have miscarried without knowing it...
BINGO!!!!!!!!
but how do you prove that?
Michael Bennet (1998) Miscarriages. In NF Hacker and JG Moore (Eds). Essentials of Obstetrics and Gynecology, (3rd ed), p. 477. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company.:
"..spontaneous abortion occurs in 10% to 15% of clinically recognizable pregnancies."
...
"more than 65% of all conceptions are lost, the majority in the 14 days following conception."


Hence, with 5 pregnancies to term, you must have miscarried about 15 times in the process.
I would love to see the Scientific confirmation for that claim. ....
Oh...go find it yourself....you know it's there....
AH, the prolife copout, trying to have others explore the evidence of their own lies. How dishonest of you. Not only do you lie, you are also lazy.
 
jimmyjack said:
Just for you steen
Another prolife lie site. So?

Go look at the actual scientific evidence at the beginning of this tread. All your prolife attempts at lying about the facts of the science don't mean squat to me.
 
hydatidiform

A vesicular or polycystic placental mass resulting from the proliferation of the trophoblast and the hydropic degeneration and avascularity of the chorionic villi, usually indicative of an abnormal pregnancy. Also called mole.
 
steen said:
Hence, with 5 pregnancies to term, you must have miscarried about 15 times in the process.
You might wish to change "must" to "are statistically likely to" since population statistics are not determinative for individuals. Let's recall the story of the general who drowned leading his troops across a stream that averaged only three feet deep.
 
steen said:
partial [hydatidiform] moles are [a human].... -- Felicity
International Society for the Study of Trophoblastic Diseases
http://www.isstd.org/intro/#1

1. WHAT IS A HYDATIDIFORM MOLE?
A hydatidiform mole is an abnormality of fertilization. There are two types of hydatidiform mole, complete and partial. With complete mole the chromosomal genetic material from the ovum (egg) is lost, by a process that is yet not understood. Fertilization then occurs with one or two sperm and an androgenic (from the male only) conceptus (fertilized egg) is formed. With this conceptus the embryo (fetus, baby) does not develop at all but the placenta does grow but it is abnormal and forms lots of cysts and has no blood vessels. These cysts look like a cluster of grapes and that is why it is called a hydatidiform mole (grape like). A hydatidiform mole miscarries by about 16 to 18 weeks gestational age. Since the diagnosis can be made by ultrasound before that time, it is better for you to have an evacuation of the uterus (D & C) so that there is no undue bleeding and no infection. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) will assist in making the diagnosis.
The other type of hydatidiform mole is called a partial mole and this is also a genetically abnormal pregnancy. In this case there are three sets of chromosomes instead of the usual two and this is called triploidy. With such a pregnancy the chromosomal (genetic) material from the ovum (egg) is retained and the egg is fertilized by one or two sperm. Since with partial mole there are maternal chromosomes there is a fetus but because of the three sets of chromosomes this fetus is always grossly abnormal and will not survive


Isn't that what I've been saying? Guess you shouldn't have been so "fascinated" Doc.
 
jimmyjack said:
hydatidiform

A vesicular or polycystic placental mass resulting from the proliferation of the trophoblast and the hydropic degeneration and avascularity of the chorionic villi, usually indicative of an abnormal pregnancy. Also called mole.
Exactly. The product of conception, the merging of a sperm and an egg.
 
Diogenes said:
You might wish to change "must" to "are statistically likely to" since population statistics are not determinative for individuals.
You are right. She is statistically likely to have miscarried 15 times per her 5 pregnancies.
 
Felicity said:
International Society for the Study of Trophoblastic Diseases
http://www.isstd.org/intro/#1

1. WHAT IS A HYDATIDIFORM MOLE?
A hydatidiform mole is an abnormality of fertilization. There are two types of hydatidiform mole, .....

Isn't that what I've been saying? Guess you shouldn't have been so "fascinated" Doc.


Really? You are STILL claiming these to be a human being
 
steen said:
Really? You are STILL claiming these to be a human being
with partial mole there are maternal chromosomes there is a fetus but because of the three sets of chromosomes this fetus is always grossly abnormal and will not survive

What does that say, steen...???
 
Felicity said:
with partial mole there are maternal chromosomes there is a fetus but because of the three sets of chromosomes this fetus is always grossly abnormal and will not survive

What does that say, steen...???
That you are wrong. There is no fetus. There is originally a zygote, but it doesn't even fold over to form a blastocyst, yet alone an embryo. And thus, there certainly also is never a fetus.

The text you quote is in error.
 
steen said:
That you are wrong. There is no fetus. There is originally a zygote, but it doesn't even fold over to form a blastocyst, yet alone an embryo. And thus, there certainly also is never a fetus.

The text you quote is in error.


You are disagreeing with the International Society for the Study of Trophoblastic Diseases (ISSTD)?

You...the 1st year Child Psych internist know more about trophoblastic disease than the International Society for the Study of Trophoblastic Diseases????? Your hubris is ASTONISHING!!!!:laughat: :lamo :2rofll:
 
steen said:
There is originally a zygote,


Dude...life begins AT conception....THAT IS conception.....:doh
 
steen said:
You are right. She is statistically likely to have miscarried 15 times per her 5 pregnancies.


I've never had a pregnancy that I am aware of that ended in a miscarriage....are you attempting to revel in a possible tradgedy? That's just....warped...
 
Back
Top Bottom