.”That hypothesis – of interrupted pregnancies being carcinogenic because they arrest breast cell development in an immature and vulnerable state, and the related finding that the cancer risk is strongly mitigated by an initial full-term pregnancy "

One might assume from this, that women who have not had children or abortions, and as a result their breasts have not fully developed and produced milk, would therefore also be at a higher risk of getting breast cancer. I wonder if this relationship has been statistically tested.

David

Another research question would be whether there is an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have suffered a miscarriage. If there isn't, but there is for induced abortion, then perhaps that points to a mechanism for an increase.

Also, since there is likely some endocrine disruption brought about by induced abortion, then it's likely there is some way of reducing any risk.

thanks David however cool heads rarely prevail when progressive dogma is exposed.

If the author of this article was just a GP, instead of being identified as "... Queensland secretary for the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life." , I might take this article more seriously.

If this vasectomy/prostate link has any truth to it, why don't all the loony-toon right-to-lifers gather together in hordes outside surgeries that perform vasectomies then?

There is no proof that abortions lead to breast cancer, and you know it.
Campaign against abortion by all means, but don't scare/shame women who have had abortions into thinking they will be 'punished' for their 'sins', when there is no actual proof for the breast/cancer link.

If there was proof, then the mad 'World Congress of Families Conference" wouldn't be so on the nose that they couldn't even hire a place to hold it!

"Both hypotheses remain unproven, plagued by conflicting evidence, yet both deal with grave medical issues that demand ongoing dispassionate research."

Correct, and this is where the article should have stopped. However, for some reason you go on, with the assumption that the hypothesis is proven, and provides a superficial criticism of the data to try and support this.

If at some stage in the future there is sufficient evidence that abortions increase the risk of cancer, then that would be the time to discuss actions to inform patients and mitigate risks. Until this time these actions are baed on false assumptions.

There will be people on both sides of the abortion debate shouting from the extremes of the discussion. The fact that one side might be incorrect doesn't make the other side correct.

Seriously, how many times does this have to be dinged on the head. There is precious little good evidence for a link between abortion and breast cancer and bucket loads of good evidence that such a link does not exist.

Yet we have these anti-abortionists harping on about 'the link' as if it really existed. It only exists in their febrile imaginations.