Let us start off with a quote:
"There is no such thing as an unborn baby. A foetus is not a baby. It is difficult to reason with or talk sense to one who insists on using emotive language. Sure, a foetus is worth taking care of. However, the interests of the woman who is a living independent person is more important than those of part of her body. As long as she is pregnant the foetus is part of her body".
The foetus is not part of her body. It has a different physiological make up. There are fundamental differences in the two persons. He or she has a different blood group and there are other fundamental differences. HE OR SHE IS NOT PART OF THE MOTHER'S BODY. Get some basic physiological knowledge because you are making a fool of yourself here. The foetus has brainwaves and a heart beat.
Another quote:
"She has the right to decide to terminate her pregnancy. It’s that simple. It is not wrong to terminate a pregnancy. I think it’s a woman’s right to do so. Apparently you would deny her that right and think that it’s wrong for her to terminate a pregnancy".
When people use the word "terminate" I say that it sounds OK unless you are the person being terminated.

He has jumped from flawed physiology to flawed ethics

Oh come on Gadfly. Have you seen the authors websites?

The Endeavour Foundation sounds like an advertisement for radical Christian groups.
She advocates anti abortion, anti feminist, anti euthanasia, pro-family, pro marriage, anti gay, etc
So you can't tell me that she and her followers don't have another agenda where abortion rights are concerned?

Childless women being more susceptible to breast cancer than those who have children is well documented. Maybe it follows that if a woman has an abortion, but then never has any further pregnancies or births, that she may also be more susceptible to breast cancer.
However, this is not because she had an abortion as such, but because she also never had any children.

How awful then that a god apparently 'creates' infertile women, who then have a slightly higher chance of developing breast cancer through no fault of their own?
How can this same god also request that nuns refrain from sex and children if this breast cancer is also more likely to happen to them too?

Babettes other site is abortionbreastcancer.com, another Christian based site that advocates a link to :
"U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on Abortion-Breast
Cancer Link"

What on earth can unmarried, celibate old men possibly have to contribute to a debate like this, except to carry on about the Catholic church's 'teachings'?

Abortion is no one else's business except the parents and their doctor.

Dear Gladfly42,

Shouting does not make you right. My uncle had one blue and one brown eye. It results from a somatic mutation where the cell that is going to develop into an eye has a gene that mutates. This is not in a germ cell so it does not carry on to his descendents. Everyone else in the family had two blue eyes. However, both eyes were part of his body. In like manner a foetus may have a different blood type and other differences from the pregnant woman, but it is part of her body unless she gives birth or the pregnancy is terminated in some other manner.

The foetus does have brainwaves and a heartbeat once it develops that far. Nevertheless it is part of her body. I have studied both physiology and anatomy and have a good knowledge of both. I think it’s generally not a good idea to call another person a fool because you differ with that person. I see no need to call you names. I don’t think you are in a position to decide whether my ethics are flawed or not. I don’t agree with your view of right and wrong, but I do not think I can decide that for you. I also don’t think you can decide that for me.

I think it was a great advance in human rights when the US Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal in the US. Without making abortion legal women who needed an abortion would either go the coat hanger route or use the services of a backyard abortionist which could also be quite risky. A woman who wants an abortion should have the services of a medically, competent physician.

During WW2 my cousin had a boy friend who went off to war. Two months later she got word he was killed. She found she was pregnant and committed suicide. This ended her existence, and, of course, the foetus died with her. Part of what motivates me to support a woman’s right to abortion is her memory.

Susie has finally acknowledged that being childless increases breast cancer risk, but then denies that abortion increases risk! This is illogical - if the pregnant woman did not have the abortion, she would not have been childless and would have reduced her risk of breast cancer, and she would have reduced her risk still further if she breastfed her baby. One cannot breastfeed an aborted fetus.
But there is an independent risk factor associated with the abortion itself. Pregnancy causes breast cells to multiply and these are vulnerable to cancer, just like the breast cells of a childless woman, but a pregnant woman has more of these vulnerable breast cells. Breast cells do not become resistant to cancer until after 32 weeks of pregnancy, so a first or second trimester abortion, or a second trimester miscarriage increases breast cancer risk because the woman has more Type l and Type 2 cells which are vulnerable to cancer.
And I note that Susie has ignored the four recent studies I quoted from a range of countries which showed the link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. The study from Armenia is particularly significant because the researchers noted that "any birth is protective.... and that each year delay in first pregnancy increased risk". Our Cancer Councils are culpable because they have known this for decades but are not informing women.
I do not mean to imply that every woman who gets breast cancer has had an abortion, but it is a significant risk factor, just like not every road accident is related to alcohol consumption, but alcohol does contribute significantly to road deaths.
Greg Byrne

Gadfly, you can believe what you like, as will I.

Why are you so concerned about women having abortions anyway?
Isn't it enough that you and yours can choose not to have an abortion?
You should leave everyone else alone to make their own decisions.

It is not ok to force a woman to carry on with a pregnancy she doesn't want.
If a woman is determined to have an abortion, she will do it, no matter what.
How would you force women to stay pregnant and give birth Gadfly?
Would you tie them to a bed until the labour starts?

Luckily, It is legal and safe to have an abortion in public hospitals in Australia.
This will never change, in a thankfully increasingly secular world...

My cousin who was pregnant and committed suicide cannot get breast cancer. She cannot get any disease, feel depressed or have any more ailments. That is because she is dead. If she had been able to get an abortion she would have lived on and would possibly have had children at a later date. I regret that legal abortions were not available at that time. I am glad that other women who are in similar situations now have the choice. I think it is most important that they continue to have that choice.