Another aspect of how abortion increases the risk of breast cancer; because it increases the risk of future premature deliveries: Again - the biological reason why abortion / premature delivery would cause breast cancer is that estrogen climbs 2,000% by the end of the first trimester. Estrogen causes her breasts to grow, and it stimulates her lobules to multiply. At the conclusion of the first trimester, she has developed an increased number of cancer-vulnerable Type 1 and 2 lobules. During the last months of pregnancy, another process (differentiation) protects her from the adverse effects of estrogen. Under the influence of other hormones, her lobules are matured into Type 3 lobules and then cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. Sooooo...if a woman delivers prematurely (before 32 weeks) OR undergoes an abortion, she does NOT undergo the differentiation process...which leaves her with GREATLY increased number of cancer-vulnerable Type 1 and 2 lobules. And since abortion greatly increases the risk of premature labor in later pregnancies...it is risk multiplied. Why are the proabortionists attempting to block the release of this information? Why don't they want informed choice?
Why is it when I type in, "Type 4 lobules" into Google all I am getting are websites mentioning breast cancer AND abortion? Is there ANY information at all on the development of the breasts without mention of abortion when it comes to these types 1-4 lobules? Perhaps some Scientific journals on breast development that don't have an agenda to push?
How about this: Current Obstetrics & Gynecology By Gita Ganguly Mukherjee, Sudip Chakravarty, Bhaskar Pal, et al, Jaypee Brothers, Medical Publishers http://books.google.com/books?id=hv...wCA#v=onepage&q=breast lobules type 4&f=false Oh yeah - in this medical text they talk about avoiding induced abortions as a strategy for reducing your breast cancer risk....
Yeah I found that one too already. I am looking for something that only discusses the development of the breasts without mentioning anything political.
You might find this study useful: Breast Differentiation and Its Implication in Cancer Prevention You are welcome.
Spinster females who remain barren also have a high risk of contracting breast cancer. Females unable to have children risk a higher risk of contracting cancer. So what? Do you have any idea how much higher the risk is....it is statistically insignificant. That being said I really dont want to confuse simple people with mathematics.
I think it is important to emphasize this fact, lest women believe they should bear as many children as possible in order to avoid cancer. IAC, that won't work, I can say so as one who has given birth four times and still had cancer. OH, and just FYI, I have never had a miscarriage or abortion.
OK, My Mujm had breats canecr at age 79 and had a mastectomy. That was three years ago and she is doing great - no chemo, no radiation, takes 1 pill a day. I hope you are doing as well.
What is, perhaps, not only shameful, but downright evil is that so many so-called Pro-Lifers either blissfully ignore or deliberately overlook the ever increasing evidence that prolonged psychological stress--such as the kind incurred by having to provide care and support for a child one is neither financially nor emotionally capable--may not only be an indirect cause of cancer (as well as a myriad of other health problems) but may also facilitate the spread of cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/stress
American Women already face a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of about 12.5 percent, boosting that risk by even a small percentage through the procurement of a single induced abortion is comparable to the risk of lung cancer from long-term heavy smoking. Approximately 1 in 100 women procuring an abortion is expected to die as a result of abortion-induced breast cancer. Women should be informed of these statistics: Ponder this: Breast cancer is the greatest cancer killer among American women between the ages of 20 and 59. The incidence of cancer climbed 40% in the last quarter of the 20th Century (since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States in 1973), while the incidence for all other cancers has either remained the same or declined. ["Breast Cancer Numbers Up, But US Cancer Deaths Drop," Reuters, June 5, 2001] How can the proabortionists justify withholding this information from women considering abortion?
Who said anything about withholding information? The bottom line is that women who have children for which they are not emotionally, financially, or psychologically prepared are not necessarily going to be healthier or happier. Indeed, they are likely to be considerably less healthy and less happy.
How many of your meaningless studies must we be forced to track down and debunk? http://www.plannedparenthood.org/re...-claims-about-abortion-breast-cancer-5095.htm
But wait, children are a blessing! And women should still be forced to have children they don't want whether it will make them sick or not!!!
Shakes head in disbelief I don't know I go away for a while and people start regurgitating the same debunked pseudo scientific claptrap that has been debunked more often than a drunken sailor in a cyclone Now I could go on all day with links that disprove this pile of steaming horse manure but I would rather YOU do some real homework and validate this with a link, not to a blog or a website but a systematic medical review of the current literature - try using google scholar for a start http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470204500002540 Here is an extract - don't bother Googling I got it from MDConsult Townsend: Sabiston Textbook of Surgery, 18th ed. Copyright © 2007 Saunders, An Imprint of Elsevier accessed via MD consult and then there is this ACOG Committee Opinion No. 434: induced abortion and breast cancer risk. - Committee on Gynecologic Practice - Obstet Gynecol - 01-JUN-2009; 113(6): 1417-8 (MEDLINE® is the source for the citation)
Adoption causes more emotional trauma for a woman than either abortion or unwanted childbirth. Don't you think that kind of stress contributes to cancer? Pregnancy/childbirth is more dangerous for the woman than abortion, a woman should not be forced to take the risks of pregnancy/childbirth just to hand over the child to someone else. Then just one more small problem, IF it were actually possible to end abortion, there would not be enough adoptive parents after the first year or so.
Most pro-lifers switch to pro-choice after they impregnate a mistress (good example is G. Bush, Junior) which is a further indiaction of their hypocricy.
If the government would allow women to sell an unwanted baby to the highest bidder abortions would go down in number and many people would be satisfied - Conservatives, Christian zealots, barren women who want a baby, poor women who need money, anti-abortionists, and many other right-wing, fanatics would be appeased thereby making the country safer.
There are many childless couples who would be so grateful for the opportunity to share their love and lifes with a baby given up for adoption. What a much better option then killing your child.
