Many things increase the risk of breast cancer, for example taking oral contraceptives, drinking alchohol, and having a bad diet. Forcing women to have children seems like an extreme way to minimize risks. There are legitimate reasons to appose abortion and I respect those who can discuss these issues honestly but don't pretend that it has anything to do with the health of the women.

PS discussing risk without numbers (never mind statistics) are almost completely meaningless.

Stezza
Nobody is forcing women to have babies. What we are saying is that having babies will minimize the risks of adverse outcomes such as breast cancer. We can present figures to prove what we are saying. There are what is known as meta analyses which take large samples of women who have had abortions compared with other samples of women who have not had abortions and compare the breast cancer rates (which doesn't prove very much on its own but we also have biological evidence of why abortion predisposes women who have had abortions to greater risk of having breast cancer). Even this does not prove the case but rather it shows that the link is sufficiently strong for women to be advised of it as a potential risk factor before having an abortion.

thanks Babette but you need to realise you are trying to reason with people who deny that diseases happen very commonly from sodomy. ABC/SBS like most western national broadcasters are all about ideology not truth or even balance. Just look at the smirking faces of the Q& A audiences when anything of decency is mentioned.

Thanks, as a medical researcher I'm aware of the methods and limitations of meta analysis. From my reading of the primary literature I found the only studies that support your hypothesis are the 3 referenced in the article. I am still reading the many studies that do not support your hypothesis (many more than 3). While this does not nessesarily mean you are incorrect, it either means there is a risk for methodological errors, or that the risk is so minor that it is difficult to distinguish from the background, As I previously wrote, I am not pushing any viewpoint on this subject and am happy to be guided by the science. However when I see cherry picked data and personal attacks on reputable people and groups it suggests to me that there is a secondary agenda behind articles such as this one.

Stezza

I have not said that abortion causes breast cancer or even raises the risk of breast cancer. What I have said is that there is sufficient evidence of a link for women to be advised of the possibility of a link before having an abortion. That is not going very far although I think that at this stage we could go further. After 16 years the link would have been debunked if it were not a real possibility.

At the moment that is all that we can say.

Honestly now, on the basis of all that Mrs Francis has said, do you still think that this is an unreasonable position to take?

runner, "thanks Babette but you need to realise you are trying to reason with people who deny that diseases happen very commonly from sodomy"

Yesterday I drove past one of the best examples of Progressives' political correctness. It was lit billboard proclaiming that food doesn't cause HIV. Nothing else but that message. Nothing about gay sex or condoms. AIDS is on the increase and the fear is that bisexual sex will introduce it to young women, with catastrophic flow-on effects to young couples and their children.

However it is apparently never politically correct to say the obvious, that 'bare-backing' gays are spreading AIDs and a raft of other serious diseases, and some of those gays are obviously having unprotected sex with women without informing the women of the risks they bring, otherwise consent would likely be withdrawn.

There should be a law requiring any man who practices anal sex to advise women first when seeking consent to sex. Obviously the 'Progressives' are not progressive enough to care, as long as the sensitivities of risk-taking gays are protected.