Gadfly, will the women also be warned about their increased risks of breast cancer after having both early and late term miscarriages?
If not, why not?
What do you say about those with breast cancer who never suffered either loss?
What about males with breast cancer?

Why are you and Edmunde so interested in this abortion/breast cancer link rubbish anyway?
Why not concentrate on males with prostate cancer and it's links with overuse of masturbation in their lifetime?
Well why not? We could manufacture 'evidence' on that if we tried also...

Gladfly, This is specifically the question multiple groups have attempted to answer based on expert opinion in this specific area. As you stated above, the result of expert opinion is:

"women should not necessarily make life-altering decisions based on these findings."

As you said regarding whether or not abortion raises the breast cancer risk."I don't know and nobody knows at this stage".

The reason we are seeing articles like this, and opinions like yours is that even though a majority of experts agree with the statement above, the minority (Joel Brind) disagrees with this. That is completely fine, and it is good that people challenge the current scientific evidence. However until the time that this evidence is convincing enough for the majority of doctors, researchers and epidemiologists, it will remain as an unproven hypothesis. I am not saying the Brind is either incorrect or correct, and it seems like either are you. Therefore telling anyone that their actions are potentially harmful in the absence of sufficient evidence is not morally justified.

I will keep giving you non-abortion examples, to try and highlight your bias in this regards. The act of childbirth directly causes the death of over 250,000 women per year. This link has obviously been proven, however would you propose that women seeking to have children (or even an abortion) should be warned of these risks? Interestingly, have you considered that the potential risk of dying from breast cancer following an abortion is less than the risk of dying during childbirth. If that is the case then your entire argument is a moot point.

Let me put it very simply to you. Jennifer Brown wants to have an abortion OK? The question is should she be told that there is evidence of a possible link between abortion and breast cancer that is not proven definitely but for which there is sufficient evidence that she should be made aware of it. I think that she should be made aware of it. This in no way interferes with her decision to have an abortion.

Now is that asking too much if in fact there is sufficient evidence that she should be made aware of it. The link is not proven at this stage. Nobody is saying that it is. To fail to advise her is to deny her knowledge of possibly life threatening consequences later on in life.

But where do you draw the line when warning of "possible links" that are "not proven"?

There are many thousands "possible but unproven" risks in life, as well as pregnancy. Should we warn pregnant women about flying during first or last trimester, petting cats or dogs, eating fish, touching polished furniture, dying their hair, having sex, taking hot baths, drinking coffee, sleeping on their right side, etc etc? All of these things at some time have been suggested to be harmful to pregnant women. You understand, even though some evidence exists, it is not enough to warn every person about every possible risk. Doing so minimises the effect of warning about real risks, you know what we call "actual, proven risks".

The difference in our views is that you clearly believe that the evidence to date supports the hypothesis that abortion significantly increases the risk of breast cancer. I on the other hand believe that it may be possible that abortion significantly increases the risk of breast cancer, but there is insufficient evidence to determine if the hypothesis is true or false. When providing medical advice to patients, doctors need to deal with facts, not "possible, unproven links". As determined by multiple scientific and medical expert groups, it is not a fact that abortion significantly increases the risk of breast cancer.

Like the researchers and epidemiologists, we can continue to argue about both the evidence, and the medical advice. While I am open to changing my mind with additional evidence and expert opinion, I don't believe you are open to the possibility that the hypothesis is false, and that providing patients with incorrect medical advice due to a lack of evidence is unethical.

Do you have an anti-abortion stance, independent of the subject we are discussing? Perhaps this may be influencing your ability to objectively analyse the available data.

People will judge this discussion on logical grounds. You can put forth as much sophisticated argumentation as you like. The basics are very plain. It is obvious from what we have submitted that there are grounds for warning women of a possible link--a link that is not proven beyond reasonable doubt but rather one for which there is sufficient evidence that a person should be made aware of it. This link may be proven valid in the next 10 years or it may not be. The would be-abortion customer should make an informed choice.

Ok well I think we have taken this as far as it can go. I will finish by re-quoting what I think is the main point of the current scientific consensus "women should not necessarily make life-altering decisions based on these findings."

I enjoyed having a debate without degenerating into name calling etc.
Thanks