If there is indeed a link between induced abortions and breast cancer, why? What is the trigger? If it is 'hormonal', which hormones. What about naturally occurring abortions? Considering 1 in 7 pregnancies result in a miscarriage this would be relevant.

Maybe it is not induced abortions, maybe it is linked to all abortions, induced and natural. Or linked to the oral contraceptive pill. Or delayed sexual intercourse. Or linked to the lack of orgasms. Or the components in the semen of some men. Or breast feeding. Or the lack of breastfeeding. Or indeed, bearing a son to full term instead of a daughter. Considering the study quoted came from China. Possibly the most relevant common factor.

I've worked in hospital settings for some 37 years and seen many, many women with breast cancer. Including within my own family. The only women I know who have had abortions do not have breast cancer. None of the women with breast cancer have had medically induced abortions.

For the Runners of this world. Breast cancer is NOT a punishment sent down from your God for what you may consider to be the sins of a woman.

Breast cancer and medically induced abortions are two very important issues in women's health. It is concerning there is an effort to conflate the two lately.

'Breast cancer and medically induced abortions are two very important issues in women's health. It is concerning there is an effort to conflate the two lately. '

it is more concerning Yvonne that genuine concerns by doctors and others are simply dismissed because it threatens the baby killing industry.

Suseonline there IS a very effective contraceptive. It's called "ABSTINENCE". And for those already married there is the Billings method of natural family planning. Thousands of couples use it to plan their families.

These methods are a little harder but they work very well and they are quite cheap.

@ Gadfly:
Presumably one not interested in pleasures of the flesh, our Gadfly is either oblivious of the fact that "one you miss is one you never get" or is well past his prime breeding days.

Offering 19th century remedies in the 21st century is going to produce, at best, 19th century outcomes including unplanned pregnancies and increased, not decreased demand for abortions both legal and otherwise.

Only the deluded would advocate only abstinence, by any name, in lieu of a full suite of options which a woman may consider in order to maintain her health while avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Only the very cruel would go to the extreme of attempting to deny terminations for those who, for good cause, request them.

Let's separate religion and male-centric world views from consideration of women's health issues.

Lol Gadfly, when I was working as a midwife, if I had a dollar for the number of babies born as a result of the billings method, I would be a rich woman!
You certainly need to be very good at practicing abstinence if you use that messy method.

Abstinence is something put out there by holy old boys who prize 'virginal' women, because they know it is impossible for the virginal bride to know if her supposedly virginal groom is actually telling her the truth!

Sounds like a man's world to me...

From the article: “With literally millions of women bound to get breast cancer because of abortion, one wonders what it will take to wake up the medical world to this unfolding tragedy.”

If one wants to lower abortion rates, then alleviating poverty, improving contraception and raising more awareness is the answer. Religiously driven calls for abstinence are always an abject failure (in fact, abortion rates even rise with the level of religiosity and conservatism of a given populace) and scaring the heck out of women is not only unethical, but risks more unwanted children in the event that it succeeds.

If there really is a link between abortion and breast cancer, then all that means is that we need to improve breast cancer detection and cure rates, and improve breast cancer prevention through awareness campaigns that focus on ALL factors that contribute to an increased risk of breast cancer. That way, women - who do not want to go through with a pregnancy - can feel a degree of comfort in the knowledge that their chances of early detection and cure will be maximised in the event that they do develop breast cancer, and that they still have some degree of control over this with a healthy lifestyle.

This alleged abortion-breast-cancer link does nothing for the anti-abortionists’ cause. Sorry, try again.

I would be interested to know if the same (spurious?) correlations could be found with miscarriages. But I guess that wouldn’t be in the interests of anti-abortionists to publish. I do think, however, that expecting women have the right to know whether or not the abortions that God is performing on them, without their consent (i.e. miscarriages), cause breast cancer too.

As a side note (and since it’s been raised), I’d also argue that one’s religious motives certainly are relevant as Christians have the ‘lying for Jesus’ factor that needs to be taken into account when assessing their claims; something that non-believers have the virtue of not even possessing an equivalent of.