"I have not said that abortion causes breast cancer or even raises the risk of breast cancer."

This seems to be in agreement with many agencies and bodies that are aware of all the studies and literature. For example:

"More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk." The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

"Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." National Cancer Institute.

"Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. "
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Published in The Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext

So if 2-3 studies suggest there may be a link between breast cancer and abortion, and over 50 that suggest that there is no link, then yes I do think it is unreasonable to tell women that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. How about we focus on risk factors that we know increase this risk? Perhaps non-abortion issues are not important to you.

Stezza is correct, and has proper scientific data to prove the point , unlike the ridiculous article that offers us speculation from religious anti-abortion 'scientists'.

Abortion and spontaneous miscarriages end up the same way, with the loss of the fetus before 20 weeks gestation. Many women suffer from miscarriages, so if this article was true then every second woman would be bound to get breast cancer!

Babette, are you a member of the 'flat earth society' too?

The first published study on the ABC link was done by Segi et al in Japan in 1957 – and it showed a very significantly increased risk (over 85%) of breast cancer following an abortion. I don't know where Stezza's figures come from, but an overwhelming 78% of worldwide studies so far also show a positive correlation - as those who have checked the long list cited by Dr Joel Brind (http://www.bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm) will have noted.

The reason abortion is a breast cancer risk is the same reason that obesity, alcohol and the pill are risks – over-exposure to oestrogen (and progesterone, which is related). Oestrogen makes the breast lobules grow. When the lobules are immature (types 1 or 2) they are more susceptible to cancer, and greater exposure to oestrogen increases the cancer risk.

Oestrogen levels soar during pregnancy, and it is not until the last trimester that other hormones convert the breast lobules to types 3 and 4, which are cancer-resistant milk producers.

Women who begin to menstruate early or reach menopause late are at a higher risk of breast cancer – the oestrogen peak during each menstrual cycle adds to their exposure.

Obesity is a breast cancer risk because fat cells secrete oestrogen. Alcohol is a risk because it interferes with the liver’s ability to break down oestrogen, so there is more oestrogen in the bloodstream.

The biggest protective factor against breast cancer is having a fairly early full-term pregnancy. Breast feeding provides even greater protection, by increasing the number of mature, cancer-resistant, milk producing breast lobules.

Nuns are at greater risk of breast cancer because they miss out on this protection, as do other women who never have children or who delay child bearing until age 30 or beyond.

An abortion following a full-term pregnancy increases the subsequent breast cancer risk to some degree, but not nearly as much as an abortion performed years before a live birth. Teens who have an abortion, then take hormonal contraception for years before they eventually have a live birth, compound their risk.

In China and many other Asian nations, the sex of the unborn child is important. If an ultrasound shows that the baby in the womb is a girl, that baby will often be aborted. But the ultrasound does not show the sex clearly until about 19-20 weeks – and a late abortion carries a much higher risk of breast cancer than an early one, because the exposure to high levels of oestrogen is much longer.

This may explain why breast cancer rates are soaring in Asia, despite their very low rates in the past. Ultrasound machines are widely available, and are mainly used to determine the sex of unborn babies.

The overwhelming majority of international researchers who have found an ABC link don’t have a pro-life agenda. One day, the truth will out – but given the entrenched totalitarian, censoring mindset of the Western sisterhood, I may not live to see that day.

Edmund, that's interesting alright, but how come so few mainstream modern day scientists don't agree?

Anti-abortion advocates are clutching at straws again.
For goodness sake, why not advocate for more freely available and effective contraception which would stop so many more unwanted pregnancies in the first place?
Or would that be against ancient religious 'laws' too?

I wouldn't mind if Babette and her ilk just came right out and said they were against abortion because some old religious book says women must do as they are told and just have baby after baby, no matter what the woman feels about that, instead of making up all this rubbish...

Dear Stezza, More precisely, Leslie Bernstein had no publications in the specific area of abortion and breast cancer, though many others on other aspects of breast cancer. Importantly, however, she was positioned as THE expert on the issue in the 2003 NCI workshop. Most importantly, her bias was made as clear as a bell in an interview she gave to reporters right after that NCI workshop in 2003:
She said even though the findings clearly show that “the biggest bang for the buck is the first birth and the younger you are the better off you are, ” women should not necessarily make life-altering decisions based on these findings.
“There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.” Had I been there, I would have followed up with "...even if they are already pregnant?" After all, abortion only has meaning to a woman who is already pregnant. But Bernstein continued: “I don’t want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability. I think it should not be part of the argument,” Bernstein said. Does that sound like an objective, scientific position to you?