How do they do that if they are not aware of them? We are unable to get any medical authorities to even admit that a problem exists. If you believe that women should make informed choices about the ABC link then you should try demanding that a women are advised of the POSSIBILITY of a link before they have an abortion.

This issue continues to push buttons, and today's news of a sharp rise in breast cancers worldwide will push some more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-13/an-global-cancer-cases-rise/5153890.

Should we ban Maccas outlets because of their link with increasing obesity? Or should we also look more closely at the recent China meta-analysis cited by Babette? Its methodology is beyond reproach. It not only found a link with abortion, but found the risk was dose-related (the more abortions a woman has, the higher her breast cancer risk).

Suseonline and others have dismissed any concerns about the ABC link (which some now concede is possible) because even if it is true, women should not forgo an abortion on this ground. Suse, Stezza and Bugsy should talk to US pro-choice researcher Dr Janet Daling, who found that women with a family history of breast cancer have an especially high risk after abortion. Indeed, Daling's 1994 study found that every woman with such a history who had an abortion aged under 18 later contracted breast cancer.

Women have a right to know.

Actually Edmund Burke, I think that talking to Janet Daling would be a very good start. The follow ups to her 1994 study is a very good example of the incoherence of the abortion-breast cancer link and especially of your neat narrative of oestrogen being the causal agent. Dalings 1996 study showed almost contradictory results to some the 1994 study especially on when the abortions took place (> or <9-12wks). One other thing is that her results are totally at odds with other studies in that it didn't matter how many abortions there were, i.e. there was definitely no dose-dependent effect, which is at odds with that reported by the Chinese. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that Chinese abortion is almost exclusively to control family size after the first full-term pregnancy, which is completely different to Western use of abortion, which is used to delay the first full term pregnancy? Also, the effect was much lower that Joel Brind interpreted for China(RR risk increase overall about 50% in the first study, which was reduced to about 20% in the follow up study). Anyway, that was nearly 20 years ago, since then what has changed? Not much apparently, that's the problem, the results of more focused studies aren't coherent.

When a causal agent has putatively been identified, then more targeted follow-up studies should be able to add more to the picture and make it more coherent. That hasn't happened, the literature is full of one-off studies that discover some huge effect that doesn't stack up with follow up studies.

Yes, I do think women ought to know that.

This to-ing and fro-ing seems not to be getting anyone anywhere.
It's clear that the issue here is not about abortion's link to cancer; it's about the morality of abortion.
In that regard, may I make just a couple of reasonably succinct comments ? No vetoes ? Then I will.
There is no difficulty or problem for which an acceptable solution is the deliberate killing of an innocent person.
No-one will publicly disagree with that, but many will claim that the in utero child is not a person. Of course, anyone with half a wit knows that it is; everyone knows that it is. But those who place the right to abortion above the right to life will be steadfast, as was Hitler when he had the Jews declared non-persons because he wanted to get rid of them.
Then there are others who understand that the right to life trumps the right to kill, and they advocate contraception, desperate to pre-empt the killing while appeasing the sex addicts.
However, contraception is, again self-evidently, like sodomy, a perversion of the natural order. We do not progress civilisation by promoting perversion.
In the end, it's simple stuff - don't kill innocent persons and don't practise perversion. I can personally testify to the uncomplicated lifestyle you'll enjoy.
I won't be back to argue with anyone.