It would be true to say that the academic world is totally saturated with left wing thinking, and that thinking is now entering into areas of research as well.

This is a concern, because it means the reliability of any research becomes suspect or questionable.

Are the research results scientifically accurate, or have the results been corrupted in some way to fit an ideology?

That is now a question anyone can ask themselves when looking at the results of any research.

Regards abortion, feminism currently rules, and it is 100% unlikely that accurate, reliable or objective research can ever be carried out about aborting in this current situation.

"Wasn't there some philosopher who said that without a belief in God people find it difficult to behave ethically?"

I take issue with the inference that those of us who are atheists have no ethics. From my experience, most atheists of my generation were brought up as Christians, but because they have learned to think for themselves, can no longer accept the fairy stories of their youth. If there truly was a supreme being, would such a being stand by while mankind behaves so appallingly to its fellows.

Don't decry our standard of ethics. Look at the standard of ethics of your imagined creator before you denigrate us.

David

Babette, this imagined vendetta against your little 'family' event by atheists and pro choice activists is nothing but a means to drum up business for the event is it not?

I very much doubt if many people, other than your band of supporters, really cares whether this event goes ahead or not.

Most intelligent medical professionals wouldn't want to waste their precious time 'debating' with you such a ludicrous notion that there is a link between breast cancer and abortion, because there just isn't.
Many, many women have breast cancer without ever having had an abortion, and many women who had abortions never get breast cancer.

Maybe you should speak to your 'creator' about all the spontaneous 'natural' abortions/miscarriages he is supposed to cause so many women to have.
No pre-requisite for abortion there is there....

Back again Suseonline? You can't resist have a dig at Babette. You have been coming back for years. Obviously you have a problem with her articles?

Babette did not ask those journalists to write those articles. Like you they were disturbed by the facts that were brought to light. They seem to have a ring of truth do they not--these facts I mean? Why don't you come along and barrel the authors up and put them in their place? Anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about these matters would soon put them in their place wouldn't they?

Come along and bring whatever experts you can and expose this hoax for what it is Suseonline.

Well documented article on the hidden problems of abortion, however, it is doubtful that the feminists will tolerate the science that they disagree with.
Pro life and pro family policy would cure many of the ills of our society if only the politically correct would give it a chance.

All the best for the World Congress of Families - we need it!

@VK3AUU
"Wasn't there some philosopher who said that without a belief in God people find it difficult to behave ethically?"

It was most likely a reglious person just before or just after they broke one of their commandments, you know how good they are at projecting.

@Suseonline love your work.

Susanonline,
Please educate yourself about the meaning of the statistical. Finding a link between abortion and breast cancer does not meant that all who have abortions will get cancer. I find your postings hysterical and ideological, you constantly play the person and not the argument. Your posts are entirely conditioned by your belief that abortion is OK and your infantile understanding of Christianity. Leave it off!
Peter Sellick

Just between us Babette, how much US sponsorship has gone into this? How much are US right-wing Christian organisations paying you to try and influence Australian politics? (at least you admit it's politics and nothing to do with women). You further happily show that Dr. Angela Lanfranchi's talk is not medical at all, but political. She's not telling the actual truth but a convenient lie that has been completely debunked. So why bring a fringe medico into a mainstream political meeting? So you can all try and pretend to yourselves that your harmful ideas have some foundation other then "God told me". Please don't pretend to be moral while pushing ideas based on lies.

"The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies, including the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists."

If you were pro-life you'd be more concerned with the refugee problem or that Israel is bombing schools in Palestine. The reality is that you don't care at all. This is about you harming society with religious nonsense.

Thinking people shouldn't just be booking your seats, they should be tearing down your fences and taking the stage.

It would be true to say that the academic world is totally saturated with left wing thinking, and that thinking is now entering into areas of research as well.

That's a lie:)...The right wing thinking is in cooperated thinking mode. The fine line that defines political science, is ability to define the greater questions that the people need to feel all is fine and well in motion.

The greater political view is to create balances with-in the subject matter, that voters can relate to.

Tally

Atheism is a profession (or is it a confession?), most avowed Atheists are just extreme Protestants, they believe in all the same things as Christians they just disavow the supernatural...sort of, a lot of what they promote still has supernatural underpinnings.

Feminism puts their own selfishness above the life of the unborn so why should it surprise when the likes of Susie displays her ignorance when any threat to their worldview is threatened.

Jay Of Melbourne

I think the contrast out weights the motion of religious beliefs with finding what we take for granted. The base line (which has been fully out-lined)...depends on ones understandings of the greatest things in life, which Runner holds to him with the love that makes him complete.

To express from our humble beginnings would have to be the greatest expressional.

Tally

Tally

According to Wikipedia the views of Professor Joel Brind and Dr Angela Lanfranchi are rather isolated among those of their fellow specialists. History of science knows of many such isolated scholarly views that eventually turned out to be right, and even more of those that turned out to be wrong. Whichever the case, Dr Franchini should be entitled to present her views to an audience of specialists (as she apparently had) as well as to non-specialists - irrespective of who is funding these talks - even when this audience are a priori inclined to agree with the ethical or other implications of her findings. The same for talks by specialists or non-specialists organised by those who prefer the opposite implications.

Unfortunately, there are fanatics (albeit of both persuasions), who cannot tolerate the possibility that those who hold views opposing their own might have a point, or even be right, thus finding it necessary to disrupt their gatherings. Babette gave us a clear illustration of this fact, whether or not we like what it points to.

Sells, you are being hysterical!
While having a go at me, you deride me for being too 'personal' about the author.

Where are your opinions on the subject matter, or did you just join the discussion to rant at me because I don't share the crazy, unfounded medical views of the author?

I am in the medical profession (midwife) and I have read extensively on the subject and find it totally ridiculous to say there is 'proof' that abortion is linked to breast cancer.

There are NO medical studies proving this link...none.

I don't care about any unsubstantiated claims from religious mad-men who are 'sure' that all those hellishly sinful women who dared to have abortions are now being punished by an invisible being, and struck down with breast cancer.

It is a disgusting notion...

Tally,
Most of the things Atheists profess and take for granted are grounded in a supernatural conception of authority, human rights,public opinion, formal equality and so forth are all beyond nature.
To all intents and purposes the Atheist Pope Dawkins and his followers are just a sect of Christianity, they offer a critique of faith with a heaped helping of humanism.

If Susie had bothered to watch any of the power-point presentations by those who publicise, in the interests of women's health and survival, the link between abortion and breast cancer, she would realise that they never claim that all women who get breast cancer have had abortions (but many have been on the pill which is also carcinogenic) or that every woman who has an abortion gets breast cancer. Nevertheless induced abortion is the single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer.
Susie can go on reiterating that there is no link, but wherever she lives, she can debate with Dr. Angela Lanfranchi who is doing a well publicised lecture tour of Australia and New Zealand this August/September. Lanfranchi has excellent credentials - she is assistant professor in clinical surgery and was voted "Top Doc" in her area. Susie, were you ever voted Top Doc? And if you were, what do you make of the Abortion-Breast Cancer meta-analysis by Chinese researchers, Huang et al, who not only showed the link but also the dose effect, i.e. one abortion risk increase is 44%, two abortions risk increase is 76% and three abortions risk increase is 89%. And then there are all the studies coming out of India - Jabeen et al, Kamath et al, and many more, plus those from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Iran etc.
Does Susie ignore these because they are from non-white countries not under the control of the feminist sisterhood as the US National Cancer Institute is?

Babette lost any sympathy she might have got from me with "Wasn't there some philosopher who said that without a belief in God people find it difficult to behave ethically?"

Given the utter lack of anything approaching ethical behaviour from so many who do claim a belief in God it looks like one sided partisanship. I'm undecided about the claimed cancer link but it is clear that its a minority view in the medical world, what about the ethics of overrepresenting that claimed link. The ethics of a whole bunch of tactics used by religious anti-abortion campaigners to try and impose the results of their beliefs on others are hardly a light on the hill.

R0bert

>>” Wasn't there some philosopher who said that without a belief in God people find it difficult to behave ethically?"

(T)he utter lack of anything approaching ethical behaviour from so many who do claim a belief in God … <<

These two views are as unrelated as

“Wasn't there some philosopher (c.f. Galileo) who said that without mathematics it is difficult to understand how the physical world works?”

and

“The utter lack of technical skills of so many who do claim to understand mathematics … “

Babette, you have done it again. Congratulation! Your turn of phrase and sparkling humour is well able to turn heads and hopefully turn hearts.

Keep up your great work for common sense which unfortunately is not to common these days.

"from what looked like an atheists boot camp..."

I have no idea what an "atheists' boot camp" (to supply the missing apostrophe) might be, but the idea is a fascinating one. I envisage a barracks full of crop-headed young men and women, roused out of bed at an early hour to chant: "What do we want! No God! When do we want him? Now!".

And I see them marching off to breakfast to the tune of:

"One, two, three, four
Peter Sellick is a bore!
Five, six, seven, eight!
Daniel Dennett's really great!

Sound off -- No God!"

If Babette has nothing else, she certainly has imagination. Perhaps she can let us know when the film rights are under discussion.

If some group is buying up tickets to your event in order to sabotage it, that's unfortunate, and unethical (though in some circumstances such a practice could be seen as ethical, if the purpose was to sabotage an organisation that does serious harm to the wider community). Unethical practices are engaged in by religious and non-religious groups alike, obviously. I can't see how people's beliefs in supernatural entities would have the slightest influence on their ethics - though, naturally they would believe that it does.
On the relationship between abortion and breast cancer, few commentators seem concerned to go to the best evidence, which would simply mean checking out the most reliable, evidence-based medical sites. A lot of people are going on about left-wingers and right-wingers as if this has anything to do with evidence.
The American Cancer Society states that 'scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer'. Its coverage of this is lengthy, detailed and rigorous. It concludes: At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.'
The ever-reliable evidence-based medical writer Dr Jen Gunter has this article on one of the most recent findings - 'New study confirms no link between abortion and breast cancer'. There are plenty of other sites I could mention. Unsurprisingly, this issue has become highly politicised, and tends to divide along political lines, but the evidence is clear

Dear Suseonline

A scientific review conducted by Angela Lanfranchi, MD and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. found that support for an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link exists in current knowledge of breast physiology (as it is presented in standard medical texts), as well as epidemiological and experimental research.

The review, published in Issues in Law and Medicine, is entitled, “Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors.”. Lanfranchi is Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Fagan is the Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute.

Among 72 epidemiological studies they reviewed, the authors explained: breastcancer2“…21 show some positive, statistically significant relationship. Seven studies show a positive, marginally
significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Of three meta-analyses on the subject, two show a positive, statistically significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Two ecological epidemiological studies show a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer. These studies have been conducted over fifty years across multiple cultures and countries….”

The authors explained that surging pregnancy hormones (mostly estrogen) stimulate breast growth during the first months of pregnancy, leaving the breasts with an increase in cancer-susceptible Type 1 and Type 2 lobules (where most cancers are known to originate). If the mother carries her pregnancy to 32 weeks, her risk sharply declines because she has matured a sufficient number of lobules into permanently cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules; and she has acquired 90% of the risk reduction associated with a full term pregnancy. The authors said this evidence explains why other well-accepted reproductive risk factors raise risk including childlessness, premature birth before 32 weeks and second trimester miscarriages.

Gadfly42, I wouldn't mind betting that most of the 'delegates' at these sort of little gatherings couldn't really give a damn about the evidence re breast cancer, but are just filling the pews to push their anti-abortion barrow down the aisle.

It is all so terribly shallow....

I don't know that epidemiological studies can prove causality. The absence of scientific proof may be the expected lag. Research funds are limited and go to more popular areas. What science can 'prove' in a complex environment is limited in any case.

It may very well be the case that there is some truth in what the article is claiming and notwithstanding what some relevant professional colleges say. On the other hand, the risks of a normal pregnancy are probably higher than those for a professionally performed termination. How to factor in the risks of unavailable abortion though? What about the risks and consequences to the family, especially the other siblings, of an unwanted, severely handicapped infant? My wife and I were adamant (still are) that we would take heed of the scans that are thankfully available and we were certain to take action.

Just another point, I always wonder about the secondary agenda behind the spin where percentages are quoted without the actual numbers involved. For instance, a doubling of percentage might mean that it is now 2:1,000,000 whereas before it was 1:1,000,000. In the subject case, viz 'pro-life', the remedy of more restrictions on abortion and on the birth control pill could (re-)introduce all manner of risks, some serious such as backyard abortions.

If activists have interfered in a gathering that is wrong. It is a pity too that research is influenced by politics. That is life. The best remedy as usual is freedom of speech. In the interim the main problem is the standard of journalism that stereotypes and sensationalises to sell a dumbed-down audience, and does not inform.

Frankly if anyone really wants to reduce breast cancer, encourage an active lifestyle broad diet high in vegetables. There is science in that recommendation. As well, if you could choose your parents to win the right genes.

From the American Cancer Society

Risk factors for breast cancer:
Gender: Breast cancer is about 100 times more common in women than in men.
Age: The chance of getting breast cancer goes up as a woman gets older.
Genetic risk factors:
Family history:
Personal history of breast cancer: A woman with cancer in one breast has a greater chance of getting a new cancer.
Race: Overall, white women are slightly more likely to get breast cancer than African-American women. African-American women, though, are more likely to die of breast cancer. Asian, Hispanic, and Native-American women have a lower risk of getting and dying from breast cancer.
Dense breast tissue:
Certain benign (not cancer) breast problems:
Lobular carcinoma in situ:
Menstrual periods:
Breast radiation early in life:
Treatment with DES:
Not having children or having them later in life:
Certain kinds of birth control:
Using hormone therapy after menopause:
Not breastfeeding:
Alcohol:
Being overweight or obese:
Tobacco smoke:
Night work:
Antiperspirants
Bras
INDUCED ABORTIONS
Breast implants: These may be linked to a rare type of lymphoma, though
Chemicals:

Being alive increases one's risk of cancer but I am no more considering "curing" that by dying than by changing gender! Not I can reduce the likelihood of breast cancer by 100 time if I go for the sex change. That there may be some increase in cancer rates is statistically (and in terms of actual health) insignificant.

This same site also gives the results on actual research. While there are some minor studies that appear to show some increase - these are from the past and have serious problems with methodology. All the large scale modern studies from places like Sweden show no link. So we can safely say that the accepted scientific position is that there is no significant link

On getting fake emails from atheists: I sincerely hope that this is not the case. If it, the people involved should be ashamed of themselves. BUT atheists are neither more nor less likely to be ethical than any religious group. I think there is good empirical evidence that being Christian doesn't in itself make one good. Try Darley, J. M., and Batson, C.D., "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior". JPSP, 1973, 27, 100-108.

Onthebeach, well said!
You are far more patient with this rubbish article than me.
I don't care what religious views people hold, as long as it doesn't try to interfere with scientific and medical issues in order to try and prove their views.....

The irony is that the conduct of abortions -- namely the killing of the unborn -- supposedly constitutes womens' health service. Illogically, such killing is regarded as ethical by the pro-abortionists.

I see a raw nerve being touched with the feminist every time they are challenged to take a little responsibility. They scream equal rights and are not even prepared to nuture the babies they carry. No wonder they attack the messenger so vicously.

>> could be seen as ethical, if the purpose was to sabotage an organisation that does serious harm to the wider community <<

Truly, but supporting traditional families as pillars of society (that the World Congress of Families and “Life, Family and Freedom” are apparently about) would not be seen by anybody - theist or atheist, rightist or leftist - as “doing a serious harm to society” just a couple of decades ago.

It is probably true that the majority of those who are against freely available abortions are religious, but there are also many non-religious people who consider making late-term abortions freely available to any woman as doing “serious harm to society”. You do not have to be religious to see the demographic impact of this e.g. in Europe, although views differ on to what extent was this necessary.

>>I don't care what religious views people hold, as long as it doesn't try to interfere with scientific and medical issues in order to try and prove their views.....<<

Exactly my sentiments, Suseonline, when atheist scientists let their delusions about (a non-existent) God interfere with how they explain science to non-specialists in order to “try and prove their views".

George "exactly my sentiments, Suseonline, when atheist scientists let their delusions about (a non-existent) God interfere with how they explain science to non-specialists in order to “try and prove their views"."

What are 'non-specialists' George?
Sorry, but how on earth can anyone 'prove' the existence of any god?
Surely, belief in these supposed invisible beings is merely a faith thing?

I doubt many scientists have made any declarations of their belief (or not) in gods during the course of their scientific work, unless they were specifically asked to prove or disprove something by religious organisations?
Surely that sort of thing should not get in the way of real scientific studies...

Suzeonline,

>>What are 'non-specialists' George?<<

Laymen (and laywomen, if you like), “persons without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject”, in my dictionary.

>> how on earth can anyone 'prove' the existence of any god?<<

I never claimed you could, I just used the verb “prove” because you did it, hence the quotation marks.

>>Surely, belief in these supposed invisible beings is merely a faith thing?<<

Faith is a state of mind. It is related to belief in God which is an a priori world-view assumption (nothing to do with science). Only philosophically unsophisticated people connect it with “belief in invisible beings” and accept or reject belief in God on such level. You can speak of invisibility only in the context where visibility makes sense, as in the realms dealt with by science: quarks and electrons are invisible, our bodies are visible.

>> I doubt many scientists have made any declarations of their belief (or not) in gods during the course of their scientific work,<<

So do I, however I was hinting at scientists writing popularising books, giving such lectures or participating in popular debates, where they bring God in the context of whatever they are popularising, arguing for His existence, but today more often against it. Nevertheless, I find the public lectures by e.g. Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss and their arguments rather entertaining, even amusing for their lack of understanding of what belief in God means for an educated contemporary e.g. Christian scientist.

>> unless they were specifically asked to prove or disprove something by religious organisations? <<

I don’t know of a religious organisation asking a scientist to prove or disprove something of a purely religious nature. On the other hand, there are many communities (not only religious) built on sharing a particular or general, political or ethical view who seek out those scientists whose findings can be used to support their original political or ethical position.

Breast cancer is NOT the only serious abortion
risk. Premature & low-birth-weight newborn
babies have higher risk of crippling CP (Cerebral
Palsy). One study (1972) reported that women
with prior IAs (Induced Abortions) have reduced
risk of delivering a low-birth-weight baby. One
hundred forty-five (145) studies reported that prior
IAs increase the risk of premature delivery or
low-birth-weight; URL:
http://justiceforkids.webs.com/chapter4140studies.htm
Thus, it is clear that abortions increase the risk of
crippled (CP) newborns in later pregnancies.

In a study never challenged via letters to the editor
U.S. & Canadian researchers estimated in 2007 that
there were 1,096 excess cases of Cerebral Palsy in
U.S. infants born in 2002 due to their mothers' prior
abortions; URL:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=calhoun%20shadigian%20rooney
. Australian researchers such as Judith Lumley (PhD)
and Lyndsey Watson (PhD) have shown in studies that
induced abortions raise premature delivery risk in
later pregnancies.

Stop crippling Aussies newborn babies by damaging
women's reproductive systems by surgeries never
even proven safe via published animal studies; URL:
http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf .

Brent4life, what a crazy website you suggest we see!
No one ever said having abortions was good for women's, or their future pregnancies health did they?
Of course previous abortions cause problems in some future pregnancies, although there is no medical proof that they cause cerebral palsy at all.

Smoking or drinking alcohol by either parent has been proven to cause low birth weights and brain disorders with newborns in far greater numbers than from any other reason, so I assume you are also anti smoking and anti alcohol?

Pro-choice people like myself are not pro-abortion at all.
I would not have had an abortion myself, but would not presume to decide for anyone else because it is not my business.

I would prefer to advocate strongly for contraception and more assistance for women with unwanted pregnancies, but the way some people in society look down on single mothers, but don't seem to feel the same way about the fathers of these babies, is it any wonder the abortion rate is still too high?

"..previous abortions cause problems in some future pregnancies.."

Even if that might be so it could well be that the particular terminations that are implicated were not performed in the sort of clinic or according to best practice of the relevant professional medical colleges. Or that there were other factors that predicated a less than satisfactory outcome at the time and for the future. There could have been a higher rate of infection for instance that could have been vastly reduced in more satisfactory circumstances.

It is likely for instance that there could be a higher proportion of poorly educated and lower socio-ecconomic status women who are more prone for all sorts of reasons not just their own choices, to suffer more problems. However they would likely have suffered more problems in a normal pregnancy. Who is to say that their capacity to handle an infant would have been optimal or even adequate anyhow, which would have resulted in other problems?

Mind you, if legal termination was not available along with the appropriate medial advice, treatment and aftercare, the incidence and seriousness of problems would be far worse. That is a known fact.

That brings me to my next point, which is the probable irrelevance of factoids from overseas (they are factoids where limitations are not divulged and discussed) to Australia with its excellent health facilities.

I am a layman, but I know that any medical procedure carries a risk, but then the other available options - which are sometimes beyond State regulation and control (doctors and hospitals are strictly supervised in Australia) - are almost certain to be more risky and with the consequences sometimes terrible.

All of the facts need to be placed on the table.

Dear otb,

Well said!

Bravo!

You are correct Onthebeach.
While some women do have problems with cervical incompetence in future pregnancies after having had an abortion, it is much more rare these days with the excellent surgery and general health of most Australian women.

However, if they did not have the choice of a safe, readily available abortion, then the incidence of maternal deaths in this country would skyrocket.

It is proven in all the countries where abortion is difficult or impossible to access safely that women WILL find a way to have that abortion if they want one....and will often pay the ultimate price.

I find it incredible that the so-called 'pro-life' brigade ignore this fact.

“without a belief in God people find it difficult to behave ethically” How ethical is to murder people in the name of anti abortion. At least eight people in the US alone have been murdered in the name of saving lives by antiabortionists.

Will you discuss how ethical that is your meeting

Dear Foxy,

<<Dear otb, Well said! Bravo!>>

Indeed, and a Bravo to George too!

Foxy,

Thank you and Suseonline. I hope this, another beautiful day on the green side of the grass, finds you both well.

There is a greater care, sensitivity and spirituality that can support women who for whatever reason (and whose business is it?) are deciding not to go ahead with a pregnancy. They do not need their strings pulled though when they are emotionally vulnerable. That is cruel.

However we are not even at that stage of this discussion. We are still trying to find the relevant facts and some balance.

'At least eight people in the US alone have been murdered in the name of saving lives by antiabortionists. '

Without a moral compass it is just one murderer killing another.

Yuyutsu,

Thank you too. I did not see your post earlier.

I have to go off and use the chainsaw on a Jacaranda that is unfortunately growing through an old chap's roof. No flowers this year from it. Just finished knocking up some date scones to commiserate with him later over a cup of black tea. Gosh some of the elderly are doing it hard. He is a really nice bloke and independent. Promised me a wad of his Italian parsley too (pesto and fish tonight).

Anyhow, that is a better use of my time until dark, so I am off.

Yes runner Christians have no moral compass they have murdered people in their millions, for their own selfish gains, for thousands of years.

Yes runner millions Here are some of the Christians groups and some they have left their mark on. Ancient Pagans, Crusades, Heretics, Witches, Religious wars “in the name of our lord”, Jews, Native Peoples, Catholic extermination camps (Croatia). Catholic terror in Vietnam, Rwanda Massacres. We wont be safe until Christians are recognized for the extremists they are.

and your moral compass Helga? Feminist, athiest, socialist? Your ignorance of Christ's teaching is astounding.

Runner, I know many Christian feminists , so what is your point there?

Helga is simply quoting historical points re our real Christian history, so you can't wish that away at all.

'Runner, I know many Christian feminists , so what is your point there?' Oh really Susie. Christian feminist. Next thing you will be telling me you know many Christian abortionist backed by Jesus.

runner I know Christs teachings do you? Christ would be horrified by the brazen wealth of religions like the Catholics and Anglicans he would be horrified by the murders committed in his name.

Backed by Jesus? Runner you don’t even know what Jesus said, the teachings of Christ were written by men who mostly were not even alive when Jesus was. The church then selected which of those writings suited their expansionist wars and cobbled it together in a book you fallaciously call the word of god. You probably don’t even read it in the language it was written. It was translated from Hebrew to Latin thence to English and there have been numerous “updates” which conveniently change the meaning of the text to suit the latest crusades of the church.

Dear SuseOnline,

Talking about discredited theories, remember the West Australian scientisit Barry Marshall who claimed that it was bacteria, not stress or excess acid that caused peptic ulcers? His was regarded as a discredited theory and he was laughed at until he was proved right. This how science progresses - someone proposes a theory and it is tested out. The Abortion-Breast Cancer link has survived the test according to the large number of studies coming out of China, India, Bangladesh etc., and the tragic rise in the incidence of breast cancer not only in developed nations but also in the developing ones, which sadly do not have the facilities for early diagnosis and treatment that we have. Come on, let's hear your explanation for the rise in incidence of breast cancer in Australia while the incidence of other cancers is dropping? And what is your explanation for the "dose" effect in the study by Chinese researchers, Huang et al which I mentioned in my previous post?

Gadfly

Gadfly42, I prefer to take notice of Australian statistics on breast cancer rather than 3rd world countries.

No mention of any breast cancer / abortion links in our main breast cancer website:
http://www.breastcancer.org.au/about-breast-cancer/risk-factors/default.aspx

I never found anything re abortion/breast cancer link on any credible Australian government medical websites either.....funny that.

I respect people who just come right out and say they are anti-choice because of religious reasons, or because they would prefer women just did as they were told, or whatever, rather than trying to think up crazy reasons to take the choice away from women.

Another strange thing I read on one mad website was that the high prostate cancer rate was caused by the increasing incidence of sinful masturbation by men today, which was dreadful because of the waste of potential baby-making spermatozoa.......

You say that Australian sites don't have anything on the Abortion Breast Cancer link? You are so right. They don't which does not prove that a link does not exist.

The great majority of academic studies support the abortion breast cancer link and our experts welcome any opportunity to debate these issues but the mainstream "experts" don't want a debate. These "experts" are a bit like Al Gore on climate change who will not debate with experts from the skeptics camp.

I understand what you are getting at but what does this tell us about the mainstream cancer organizations other than that they don't want to be out of step on abortion.

We had a similar situation with lung cancer where the tobacco lobby put up millions of dollars to keep the lung cancer - smoking link out of the public arena. When eventually the cancer experts had to come clean millions of Americans had contracted lung cancer which was inoperable and therefore these people were killed by an avoidable disease. The same thing is happening with abortion and breast cancer.

Sorry Gadfly42., we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
We can talk again when your 'experts' have their mad theory vindicated.
Cheers,
Suse.

Dear SusieOnline,

There is a tinge of racism in your rejection of studies from Third World countries - you really think those little brown and yellow men cannot research as well as the white men of Australia and the USA? Let me explain why the Abortion/Breast Cancer link does not appear on developed countries websites - it is because the Cancer organisations in the West are dominated by feminists like you and have to be "politically correct", i.e. they cannot say anything to imperil the status of abortion as being "good" for women - even when a famous person like Charlotte Dawson commits suicide and explains that she never got over the depression caused by her abortion.

However, chinks are appearing in the feminist "dam" of silence: Louise Brinton, a top official of the National Cancer Institute in the USA, the foremost cancer organisation in the world, co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." The study, conducted by Jessica Dolle, appears in the April, 2009 issue of the prestigious cancer epidemiology journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. Come on, SusieOnline, read the study, I have given you the reference.

When Brinton was questioned about her acknowledging the abortion-breast cancer risk factor in view of her previous refusal to acknowedge the link, she said "no comment". However, she and the NCI cannot keep stone-walling for ever - the number of studies from around the world will cause the "dam of silence" to burst or overflow.

Gadfly

Gadfly You accuse others of racism and then call people from "Third World countries" "little brown and yellow men. Wow.

Helga, my thoughts exactly!

Gadfly, are you suggesting that only the medical scientists from developed countries are feminists then?
The ones from third world countries must all think like you then?
How on earth would you know?

As I said, no point talking about it until the mad theory is proved and accepted world-wide...... no matter what skin colours all the scientists have.

Cheers,
Suse.

Dear Helga,
Don't you appreciate sardonic humour when it is in front of your eyes? My comment about little brown and yellow men was a reflection on SusieOnline's assertion she only trusted Australian websites on the Abortion-Breast Cancer link. What possible reason could she have for such an assertion when the Chinese, Indian etc. studies have been published in open-access scientific journals?
One reason why some studies do not show an Abortion-Breast Cancer link is because the researchers either deliberately or unknowingly included spontaneous miscarriages with induced abortions. Most miscarriages in the first trimester do not increase breast cancer risk because the hormone levels do not rise high enough to maintain the pregnancy or stimulate breast cell growth. However, second trimester miscarriages will increase breast cancer risk, as was admitted in the famous Danish Melbye study which was touted as denying the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link.

Gadfly

Excuse me Gadfly, I didn't know you were a medical scientist?
Where on earth did you get your notion that women who have first trimester miscarriages don't have the same level of hormones as those who have abortions in the first trimester?
And let's be honest here, the vast majority of both induced and spontaneous abortion occur in the first trimester.

That is something very hard to prove, given that these miscarriages are not planned and thus no pre-miscarriage hormone levels can be tested unless they have an incomplete spontaneous abortion.

In any case, I fail to see how this mad push for an abortion/breast cancer link to be found will in any way affect any woman's decision whether to have an abortion or not.

If all the stronger theories as to how breast cancer is caused, such as obesity, alcohol and smoking, do not effect changes in women's behaviour, then this little 'theory' has no chance...
It's far better to concentrate on contraceptives as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Gadfly I thought your entire post was an attempt at humor. What are your feelings on shooting abortion clinic doctors and nurses as a good way to stop breast cancers in women who have terminations in the second trimester?

The pro-life movement does not condone shooting of abortion providers as a means of reducing abortions. It may have the effect of temporarily reducing abortions for a matter of days but longt-term it has little effect. The pro-life movement wants to make women aware of the physical and psychatric side-effects of abortions as a means of reducing the number of abortions. Education is better than shooting.

Suseonline: It's far better to concentrate on contraceptives as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

How can you be sure that taking oral contraceptives does not raise the risk of breast cancer?

As long as it prevents unwanted pregnancies and allows women to have more say in their reproductive lives, then the possibility of a slightly increased risk of breast cancer may be worth it.

Drinking too much alcohol is known to cause bowel, liver and prostate cancers.....how many people stop drinking 'just in case'?

If I really thought the majority of pro-life people gave a damn about the sinful women who had abortions getting breast cancer, as opposed to their apparent zeal for forcing women to go through with unwanted pregnancies ( and go without contraception so they are pregnant every year),
I might understand them better....

Dear susieonline
What made you think I was not a scientist? The data on most miscarriages (except those caused by accidents or a blow to the abdomen) not having a sufficient rise in hormones was found by Swiss researchers as far back as 1976. They were able to predict spontaneous miscarriages with 92% accuracy by just a single measurement of estradiol. The reference is Kunz J, Keller PJ, British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1976; 83: 640-4. Come on, Susie, that's a journal published by white men and maybe some white women too. Look it up. Do you understand the connection? Estradiol levels do not rise sufficiently to maintain the pregnancy or for immature breast cells to multiply. Hence no increase in cells vulnerable to cancer

Gadfly so you say "pro lifers" don't condone murdering doctors and nurses but only because it only has a temporary effect on the number of abortions, not because it is morally wrong to murder. You can see why your hypocrisy makes anything you say a joke?

We oppose shooting abortion providers on moral grounds and practical grounds i.e. that it achieves only a temporary reduction in abortions. Unlike most politicians we are driven by moral principles not by the numbers of voters in favor of a particular proposition. If you read my previous post to mean that we only oppose it because it only achieves a temporary reduction then you have read something into it that was not intended. Our main weapons are education and information. This is bearing fruit in the US with a great many abortion providers GOING OUT OF BUSINESS. That will soon be happening in Oz.

Yes Gadfly you sound very proud the clinics are going out of business and that is largely due to the doctors and nurses being murdered. You sound as if you have no morals at all. Are you a member of some Jih@dist style extremist Christian sect?

Gadfly, do you not see you are shooting yourself in the foot?
If there were enough hormones in a woman's body to sustain a viable, full term pregnancy, then you must be saying that ALL women who have had babies are therefore more susceptible to breast cancer?
It has been proven that those women who never have children are more likely to get breast cancer.....so bang goes your little theory.

You like the study on miscarriages done in 1976?
Well, many others have been done since then, and with much more advanced tests available to researchers. You will have to do better than that.

I said I trusted Australian scientists, and did not specify the colour of those scientist's skin Gadfly.
You are the one who expected them to be white!

" Unlike most politicians we are driven by moral principles not by the numbers of voters in favor of a particular proposition. "
Moral principles? Don't you mean white Christian older male principles?
Do you think only those who would seek to force women to be pregnant and give birth against their will are morally superior to everyone else?

The number of voters who want voluntary euthanasia are far more in number than those against it, so the politicians don't listen to that moral dilemma do they?

Here here susie

Dear SuseOnline and Helga,
You obviously don't understand the physiology of breast cells development. The number of breast cells increase rapidly under the influence of estradiol during pregnancy, these cells are types l and 2 which are immature cells and thus vulnerable to cancer. After 32 weeks gestation these cells mature into types 3 and 4 which are stable and resistant to cancer.
Therefore if a woman has an induced abortion or a second trimester miscarriage, or even a premature birth under 32 weeks, she is left with more cells vulnerable to cancer. It is the crucial time between 32 weeks gestation and full term birth (and lactation) which is important in maturing the breast cells, and in the case of a premature baby, the maturation can be assisted by breast-feeding.
I hope this is now clear: I repeat, a spontaneous first trimester miscarriage does not increase risk because generally the estradiol levels have not risen above the pre-ovulation peak. However first trimester abortions will increase risk because mostly these are healthy pregnancies with a high rise in estradiol levels. Second trimester abortions will increase risk (as admitted in the famous Melbye study) as will second trimester miscarriages. First trimester miscarriages caused by accidents, a blow to the abdomen will also increase risk because these were healthy pregnancies. I hope this is all clear - it is the crucial last 8 weeks of pregnancy which are important for maturing and stabilizing breast cells and making them resistant to cancer.
Why don't you two study the development of breast cells in a female from birth through puberty, pregnancy and lactation before you argue any further. The diagrams of breast cell development are available on the Breast Cancer Prevention Institution website: www.bcpinstitute.org

Congratulations to those of you valiantly trying to use reason against the dishonest christian right, but you must remember that these are people who will lie as it suits them; pick up and drop scientific method as it suits them, and allow children to be raped rather than speak out against church leaders.
To the matters at hand -
- Breast Cancer and Abortion : When we talk about science - any science - we work from the majority of scientific opinion or consensus until scientific analysis causes a significant shift in that thinking and re-opens the debate. Lanfranchi's rubbish is not in that questionable zone, it has been roundly rejected by any professional body by which we judge what "science" itself is. To the fringe naysayers trying to use Lanfranchi to back up what they think their religion has told them to believe : It's not the feminists opposing you on science. It's not the atheists opposing you on science. It's the scientists. That's how science works.
- The WCF conference and anti-gay politics : This is where Babette Francis is being flat-out dishonest. Telling lies. "Our Event is also described as 'anti-gay' even though homosexuality is not listed as a topic." Oh come on, Babette. Here Francis thinks that everyone is too stupid to understand the coded description of Larry Jacob's 4.45 session on Russia's "pro-family" policies. These are the very policies that have led to a documented rise in violence against LGBTI people in Russia. This is from the head of the WCF, the conference organisers, who are classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre. The WCF are obsessed with homosexuality and have been pro-active against GLBTI people in the United Nations, in Russia, and in Uganda. What a disgraceful, dishonest, unaustralian article.

>>the conference organisers, who are classified as a hate group<<

Well, the above post more than anything Babette wrote is an expression of hate towards those of a different opinion.

I respect other's opinions when people have the courage to tell the truth. What annoys me with people like Babette Francis is the sheer, baldfaced dishonesty of her article.

I also respect other people’s opinions when they “have the courage to tell the truth” as I see it, but that is rather obvious. What is not so obvious is to respect people whose opinion about what is the “truth” in a rather complex matter disagrees with mine. As I know Babette, I am sure she would never call an article appearing here “baldfaced dishonesty” even when she disagreed with its position.

Dear Simon666
Before insulting Dr. Lanfranchi by claiming her views are rejected by scientists, why don't you read the paper co-authored by Louise Brinton from the National Cancer Institute (USA), which acknowledged the link between Induced Abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer?
Why don't you explain why childless women have a higher risk of breast cancer? Or why the only study on Australian women, by Rohan et al, listed induced abortion as the greatest risk factor for breast cancer, a higher risk factor even than a family history of breast cancer?
The reality is that cancer organisations in the West are dodging admitting that induced abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer because this would bring down the whole edifice of abortion being "good" for women. Cancer researchers in China, India, Turkey and Bangladesh, unconstrained by western feminists, are publishing honest research.
Also please explain why the incidence of breast cancer is rising? The death rate is fortunately going down because of early diagnosis and better treatment, but the incidence is rising while the incidence of most other cancer is declining.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre is a left wing organisation, so it is going to be critical of a pro-life, pro-family organisation like the World Congress of Families. The WCF cancelled its Congress in Russia when Putin annexed Crimea. Incidentally the law on homosexuality in Russia only deals with propaganda to children. The WCF has had nothing to do with legislation in Uganda and you must be psychic to know exactly what Larry Jacobs is going to say and the precise time when he is going to say it.
And why don't you tackle the Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punishable by execution? Now there's real "discrimination" for you.
Gadfly42

Gadfly 42 -
Re : "why don't you read the paper co-authored by Louise Brinton from the National Cancer Institute (USA) etc blah blah" : The rejection of her hypothesis by the National Cancer Institute itself, the World Health organisation and every major scientific body is enough for me or any thinking person who has does not believe that western medicine is a feminist/homo conspiracy and that dinosaurs never roamed the earth. You people will never overturn science by claiming that overwhelming majority scientific opinion is a feminist conspiracy; and that your ragtag bunch of religiously-inspired outliers are having their rejected "truths" repressed. It all falls apart when we get back to how science itself is defined, and it always will.
Re : "Incidentally the law on homosexuality in Russia only deals with propaganda to children."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on not being stupid enough to not understand the actual effect of those laws on the rising level of violence and murder against LGBTI Russians; and assume that you don't care about that effect.
Re : "The WCF has had nothing to do with legislation in Uganda". Oh please. Scott Lively is involved in planning work for WCF conferences, and his central role in the inspiration and development of the "kill the gays" laws is documented. The WCF kills.
Re : "you must be psychic to know exactly what Larry Jacobs is going to say and the precise time when he is going to say it."
Maybe I missed something in Russia's so-called "pro family" laws (or the dishonestly-named concept of "pro-family" itself) that was/is NOT about gay people, and for your next comment, you can fill me in?
In regards to 4.45pm, while I am not psychic enough to know if Babette and her band of fringe misfits are organised enough to keep to a schedule - particularly as some of the moderators are best known for harrassing women outside abortion clinics, creating an environment in which a madman killed one of the security guards - that is indeed the scheduled time for Jacobs' speech.

Gadfly42 -
I forgot about one of your 'points' : The reason I don't take on Saudi Arabia in regards to anti-gay prejudice is that their anti-gay prejudice doesn't draw Australian government ministers in. This is the extremist christian position that says, hey, we're beating you up but at least we don't kill you like those other extremists. I'm taking on the prejudice itself; and the best place to do that is with the ever-dwindling set of fundamentalists who are rejected by the decent people within their religion. Working from principle - don't beat up gay people - is more effective.

Dear Simon666,
You are quite defamatory of Babette Francis and Dr. Larry Jacobs to imply they have ever suggested beating up homosexuals. Both of them have shown nothing but compassion for homosexuals, especially the males who have their very own disease, HIV/AIDS. Yes, I know heterosexuals also get AIDS, but they have not "adopted" this disease in the way the homosexual community has. And that does not take into account all the other gastro-intestinal infections caused by sodomy: hepatitis, HPV, anal cancer , rectal incompetence, fungal infections etc.
etc.
It is strange that with other lifestyle caused diseases, the message from the medical community is behavioural change, e.g. don't smoke. Why is that not applied to sodomy?
Why don't you go minister to your own flock instead of misleading hapless women about the link between induced abortion and breast cancer? How can the National Cancer Institute in the US disavow Louise Brinton when she is one of their own researchers? Or Janet Daling? Or Russo and Russo?
Gadfly42

Dear Suseonline
You are quite ingenious about finding excuses for rejecting research that does not fit your worldview that induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk. You disregard the Swiss researchers because their world-first was in 1976. Well no one has rejected their findings, they were able to predict miscarriages with 92% accuracy, now a simple blood test at 8 weeks gestation could probably identify estradiol levels and hence the risk of miscarriage with an even higher degree of accuracy. And what is your reason for rejecting the Australian research by Rohan et al?
And you are partially right about the rise in hormones in pregnancy increasing breast cancer risk, it is known as the "transient effect". Transient because if the pregnancy proceeds beyond 32 weeks gestation, the breast cells mature into type 3 and with lactation to type 4, both of which are stable and resistant to cancer.
As I have pointed out, Induced Abortion is not the only risk factor for breast cancer during a pregnancy. A miscarriage caused by a car accident or blow to the abdomen will also increase risk, as will a miscarriage during the second trimester, or a premature birth under 32 weeks. It is all dependent on the hormone levels, which are high during a healthy pregnancy.
And Suse, before you reply, please discuss my comments with an endocrinologist and an epidemiologist as you seem to have little knowledge of hormone fluctuations or statistics.
Gadfly42

Suseonline: Most intelligent medical professionals wouldn't want to waste their precious time 'debating' with you such a ludicrous notion that there is a link between breast cancer and abortion, because there just isn't.

Your view is based on 'scientific consensus'. (As an aside, the believers of man-made climate change rely on scientific consensus as the basis for their belief. But there's just one problem: there is no empirical scientific evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.)

Joel Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, takes issue with 'scientific consensus ', writing that "significant scientific studies almost always go against the scientific consensus." He continues: "If one really examines the so-called 'high quality studies' that do not show the abortion-breast cancer link, and also the critiques I and my colleagues have published in the same, peer-reviewed journals over the years (since 1996), one can appreciate the scandalous abuse of science that has permeated the most prestigious journals in recent years." ( See http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/inside-faulty-science-abortion-breast-cancer-link/355850/ )

Oh gadfly, replying to your posts is like trawling through months-old garbage looking for a lost ring that isn't there. But let's take apart your lies anyway, in case someone's life gets damaged in the same way that people like Lanfranchi and Jacobs damage people :

In regards to your comments on defamation, which purposefully misquote me, I'll just say that that it's not unexpected that your knowledge of the law is on a par with your knowledge of science, alongside the equivalent dishonesty that is to be expected from extremist christians.

In regards to your attempts to classify disease and illness by sexuality : If you're going to adapt methods of arguments from the Nazis, do your research properly, otherwise you're left there looking like a failure in unkempt jackboots. The best study for your reasoning is the film "The Eternal Jew", where the filmmaker uses editing techniques to make it seem like the Jews, themselves, can spread disease by the nature of their jewishness. The pathetic attempts by you and other bog-standard homophobic christians blindly swinging your AIDS hammer are amateurish. So for the moment, your Jesus is not going to put those extra little spiky bits on the corners of your cross - no swastika for you, gadfly, Yet. Try harder. 4/10.

National Cancer Institute - Louise Brinton : You can't make up your own science, gadfly, no matter how much it clashes with your backdoor attempts to push a religiously-based position. Yes she works there. Yes, she's come to a conclusion in her research. Yes they have added her conclusions to the database of all study in relation to the matter. Why do people need to keep telling you what the conclusion is ? There is no scientific link between abortion and breast cancer. That's because science is decided by scientific method. Science = science.