Suseonline,

I was only trying to show that what those sentences of yours were saying about the issue could also be applied to many other situations, whether such a relation exists or not. There are certainly better arguments in support of your position than those conveyed by these sentences. That was all I was trying to say, since, as said, I have no opinion about the relation, if any, between abortion and cancer.

I did not mention religion in my “reconstruction” of your sentences, only kept ‘sin’ in quotation marks as you had it. Still, I think people can regret, even feel remorse about, something they had done, even if the word “sin” is meaningless to them.

As I see it, the reason some people are against freely available abortions are not mainly because they cause cancer, whereas cancer is one of the main reasons why people are against smoking ads.

George "As I see it, the reason some people are against freely available abortions are not mainly because they cause cancer, whereas cancer is one of the main reasons why people are against smoking ads."

Absolutely George. I have no problem with people saying they are against freely available abortions, because I would like there to be no need for abortions at all, and rather have freely available contraceptives.

What I don't like is people spreading unsubstantiated 'proof' about a link between breast cancer and abortions as a means of pushing their anti-abortion barrow, leading to some of them judging women with breast cancer as being punished by their god for having an abortion.
That is cruel and nasty....

Suzeonline,

>>judging women with breast cancer as being punished by their god for having an abortion. That is cruel and nasty <<

I agree, however I cannot see this line being followed in the article discussed here, neither do I believe Angela Lanfranchi would have made such connection. For instance, for Catholics seeing illness or other misfortune as God’s punishment is a leftover from the Middle Ages surviving only as folklore, and condemned by Church authorities.

No the line being pushed by this article is that there "might -just might" be an "unproven" risk of "unknown" magnitude associated with abortion, and how dare we not inform everyone that this risk "might" exist.

The author is obviously and admittedly prejudiced by her anti-abortion ideology, resulting in her wanting to forcibly push unscientific, non-medical, and outright false information onto vulnerable people in hope that she will achieve her unrelated goals.

I'm a scientist, and if at some stage in the future there is sufficient evidence that induced abortions significantly increase the risk of cancer, I would have no problem with this being explained to patients, along with basic information on how to assess this risk (every medical procedure has risk involved, the amount can vary substantially). However at this stage there is not sufficient evidence to include breast cancer as a risk for this procedure.

I have no problem with people arguing against abortion, and I think we need to have discussions regarding consent, limits, and risks. However this needs to be a scientific and medical discussion, not one involving lies, ideology and invisible men in the sky.

>> this needs to be a scientific and medical discussion, not one involving … invisible men in the sky.

I did not find “invisible men in the sky” mentioned in the article either. It obviously is a scientific terminology whose relevance is unknown to the author (and to me).

Apologies if that comment caused offence to you or you particular invisible man in the sky.