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.