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.