I agree with Robert, we have established what the author is saying is, at best a falsehood, at worst an outright lie. The discussion has now moved on to why they author is trying to mislead the vulnerable. Perhaps the irrational belief in the unproven? Sound familiar?

Interesting follow-on discussion to a post that is pure 'opinion'. Of course the author's background, other opinions and agenda are relevant when reading the article as it gives reason for the very obvious bias that the 'opinion' presents.
If research somewhere showed that eating carrots increased the likelihood of breast cancer would the post have even been written? Of course not - unless the writer was a believer in tomatoes being the elixir of life and was wanting to discredit the eating of any other vegetables. This is a facetious example, but is about as credible as the original post.
Is a real shame that these types of unsubstantiated claims are peddled as truth and used to scare people into submission to a specific agenda or opinion.

I don't know if Dr Dunjey was involved in the subtitle for this opinion piece "Zealots should not be allowed to suppress medical debate just because it conflicts with their prejudices." but do tend to run with the assumption unless stated otherwise that authors of opinion pieces at least approve of such subtitles if they have not written them themselves.

That subtitle certainly carries with it an implied assumption the case is not just being argued on what is put in front of us but rather the broader agenda of those arguing for particular causes.

R0bert

Robert, (and others),

>>if an author has made a point worth debating I agree to a point. When it appears to be built on a false premise then it becomes relevant to go beyond just whats said. I generally like to give some thought to not just whats being nsaid but why. <<

For me, if an author has made a point I find worth debating I might enter the debate. When it appears to be built on what I think is a false premise then before addressing it I make sure the author actually mentions that premise in the article to support her argument. Otherwise, mentioning what just “appears to me” as her premise would reveal more about my prejudices than hers, and cannot be seen as an argument addressing the issue.

>> I generally like to give some thought to not just whats being said but why.<<

So do I, with emphasis on “give some thought”, not offering as an argument. A debate should be kept on the WHAT rather than WHY level, (although to know whether the author/debater is or is not a specialist can influence the persuasive power of WHAT he/she is saying.) I THINK that your world view is different from that of the author, but that is irrelevant to whether I agree or not with a particular statement you make.

>> I doubt many of us ever truly just judge on just whats said. The motives of those pushing an agenda matter. <<

True, if you want to judge the author and not WHAT she wrote.

George, what is the point of writing a piece on "what the evidence shows", then go on to admit the evidence is tenuous and finish with a declaration of an anti-abortion stance if not to promote a certain philosophical view point?

Therefore the author's philosophical view is very relevant. If not there would not have been a declaration.

If there is a link to medically induced abortions then the same must apply to miscarriages.

Previously I posted 2 links that discusses the 'evidence'.

Breast cancer is not wholly a women's health issue. Men can also get breast cancer.

Medically induced abortion is a different health issue. As is naturally occurring abortions (miscarriages).

We are a very, very long way away from concerning ourselves of any 'link'

Yvonne,

>>what is the point of writing a piece on "what the evidence shows", then go on to admit the evidence is tenuous and finish with a declaration of an anti-abortion stance if not to promote a certain philosophical view point? <<

I don’t know, but please see my response in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16582#290352.