Well here we go with some manufactured stats with no basis whatsoever in fact, trying to justify horrific abortion homicides! Maybe if they are lucky, cancer will not get them before they have the chance.
Well, I am more likely to believe that there is not an associated risk, than a vast left wing conspiracy to suppress supposed evidence. The fist is far more likely than the second.
No. As a matter of fact, this was a plot in Sex and the City! So I'm not sure where you guys are getting the "wimmens dunt know about dis" junk from.
Besides the moral implication of how good would a parent be who decides that it is alright to kill their unborn child because they aren't convenient and don't exactly fit into their timeframe - there is an additional risk of premature birth associated with prior abortions. http://www.theunchoice.com/articles/pretermbirth.htm But don't expect this information to be provided to you from abortion providers or their supporters.
You can chose to believe whatever you wish, but it will not change the findings of published scientific studies. And as far as a conspiracy - why do the proabortionists fight against providing information to women who are deciding about abortions? The normal requirements for informed consent prior to undergoing a medical procedure should not be suspended when that procedure is a termination of pregnancy.
The fact that you found one study does not make the conclusion true. There are likely more studies showing otherwise, probably being the cause behind your study being swept aside. A single study says that the CMWRB has inconsistencies that suggest a multiverse, does that single study make fact? No. No one is suggesting that it should. The issue is the validity of the study you found. A vast left wing conspiracy to kill babies and destroy apple pie is much less likely than the study being flawed.
Now if you carefully read my posts, you would note that I said there were numerous studies that showed the links between abortion & breast cancer....not just one study. This would be a good starting point to read these studies: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research/index.htm This link will lead you to the numerous published scientific studies I spoke of...
Your source is an anti abortion website. Obviously an anti abortion site will say anything at all if it means putting a stop to abortions.
How (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dare you. Are you suggesting that I, because I am childless and have used birth control for the past decade, that I have a chance of getting breast cancer, and YOUR wife does not? News flash - your missus has as much chance of getting struck down with that disease as I do. Your post is disgusting offensive and not in the least bit accurate.
"chance" is all about degrees and relativity. You are at higher risk if you take birth control and are childless. Nah, I think that has been proven false.
I hope you all know that you can stimulate the production of breast milk artificially. As for the other potential cause... http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage Nothing.
Check out Cady's thread which refutes the claims in Otter's OP and tell me if the links provided are from pro abortion websites?
Whaler is a male with an anti abortion agenda. He is all about controlling women.That is his entire stance. He doesn't stand against killing in anything else. He says he supports war and the death penalty. So life to whaler is meaningless unless he wants to take a side than it's murder. Two faced opinion is meaningless. His stance is solely about controlling women and he's upset that women can do something he doesn't agree with.
I have no idea but the link is to her testimony. Would anyone on here take your word or mine as gospel truth. I don't think so.
When you used to go to the dentist they would put a huge lead bib over your chest to get an x-ray. At this point, between cell phones, computers, etc., people get so much radiation on a daily basis the radiation from the occasional dentist visit is a moot point. They don't even use the lead bib anymore in most offices. My point. EVERYTHING increases our risk for cancer these days. One would have to live in the woods to avoid it. The fact someone voluntarily is sitting in front of a computer to use the internet to dissuade others from doing something because it might cause cancer is ironic, to say the least.
News flash - if you bothered to read the the links to the published scientific studies I provided, you would know that yes, you would be in a higher risk group for getting breast cancer then either Mrs. Hat or myself. Sorry.
So if you or Mrs. Hat did get breast cancer, what should I say to you? How about I find a few links on a few illnesses and diseases women with children are at higher risk of getting? My risk of cancer is the same as yours. I don't need some stupid link from an anti abortion source to tell me otherwise. My sister was recently diagnosed with cancer. She, like me, is childless and is on birth control for the same reason I am. Thankfully, she has recovered as all the cancerous cells were removed, but any suggestion that I could suffer the same is downright offensive, especially to someone who has had to deal with it.
One of your links leads to a post by you. The other link leads to KAREN MALEC's testimony. Not likely going to even bother reading either of your scientific links. Your post is as meaningless as toilet paper to this discussion and Ms. Malec's testimony is a waste of reading time. I can write ten testimonies and have them be just meaningless twaddle as her's is.
It is clear you do not understand about risk groups. And just because a pro-life site complies a list of published scientific studes, it does not negate them...a rational person would look at the evidence to see for themself - not just blindly deny information that does not fit with your proabortion agenda. I am sorry about your sister - but it really drives home the need for women to be fully informed about the risks they are exposed to when either taking artificial hormones (birth control) or undergoing the un-natural violent termination of their pregnancy. You might want to look up this study: TITLE: Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women. AUTHORS: Pike MC; Henderson BE; Casagrande JT; Rosario I; Gray GE SOURCE: Br J Cancer 1981 Jan;43(1):72-6 CITATION IDSMID: 7459241 UI: 81110289 ABSTRACT: A case-control study was conducted in Los Angeles County, California, of 163 very young breast-cancer cases (all aged 32 or less at diagnosis) to investigate the role, if any, of oral contraceptives (OC) in the development of the disease. OC use before first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) was associated with an elevated risk, which increased with duration of OC use (relative risk approximately 2.2 at 6 years of use, P < 0.01). This increased risk could not be explained by other risk factors. OC use after FFTP was not associated with any change in risk. A first-trimester abortion before FFTP, whether spontaneous or induced, was associated with a 2.4-fold increase in breast-cancer risk (P < 0.005).
