The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Abortion breast cancer link explodes in Asia > Comments

Abortion breast cancer link explodes in Asia : Comments

By Joel Brind, published 12/8/2014

The Huang meta-analysis also showed a clear dose effect, i.e., women with two or more abortions showed a risk increase of 76%, and those with three or more abortions showed a risk increase of 89%.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. All
Well, I believe runner is simply a new-age prophet really. We live in a form of society represented by the failure of the counter culture of the sixties: an"Altamont" of frenzied drug-taking, alcoholism and violence!
Abandoned traditions for convenience of free love and moral sloth! There lies a rockery road over which society must travel in order to reimerge with an acknowledgement of failure of the flower-power revolution!
Abortion could be a catalyst for this change, with it's doubtful outcomes and possible long term side effects represented in this article!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 11:49:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There have been few genuinely scholastic responses against Joel Brind so can we assume that the Abortion Breast Cancer link cannot be refuted and that in fact it is time to do something to protect women from breast cancer.

The various critics have had ample time to post genuine responses that play the ball and not the man so let us assume that there are no comebacks to Dr Brind's arguments?

If one says nothing that is a political act suggesting that there is nothing to say. If the ABC link cannot be disputed then how about some action based upon this important article??
Posted by Gadfly42, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 12:07:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty: Or perhaps display some long overdue moderation, and simply limit himself to another sermon from the mount, replete with a very big basket of fish and bread!? (They do that well down in tiny Tassie don't they?)

They go to violent extremes in Tassie. At the end of 2013, Tassie passed a Bill that decriminalised abortion, but criminalised opposition to abortion. The Bill requires doctors with moral objections to refer women to a pro-abortion doctor – or risk de-registration. This is a profound and dangerous violation of conscience. The new legislation also included dreaded ‘bubble-zone’ laws, restricting pro-lifers from offering assistance to mothers -- and restricting free speech -- within 150 metres of an abortion mill . Tasmania is the first state to have such laws, and violators may be charged with a maximum $9,750 fine or be sentenced to 12 months in jail.

JohnBennetts: "Only the very cruel would go to the extreme of attempting to deny terminations for those who, for good cause, request them."

It is extremely cruel that each abortion results in the murder of the innocent, defenceless party.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 12:51:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

What you are effectively suggesting is that, in the case of religious beliefs at least, most should simply sit back, shrug their shoulders and think, “Meh, what would I know?’

<<I think more importantly one should leave religion out of debates about the meaning or acceptance of (claimed) scientific findings on this OLO.>>

For someone who may not have the research expertise, or the time on their hands, to trawl through the research Brind cites, identifying potential bias can be a useful tool for quickly determining the level of caution with which the claims and findings of any given research might be approached.

People are entitled to exercise scepticism, indeed they would be wise to, and there is nothing wrong with alerting others to potential bias - as I did in highlighting the ‘lying for Jesus’ factor (most frequently and overtly featuring in creationist claims). Shaming others out of making such observations, by expressing one’s disapproval in a patronising tone, could be interpreted as an attempt at silencing opinions that one is not comfortable with. Religious beliefs do not deserve a special immunity with regards to raising the possibility of bias.

It seems, however, that the majority of Brind’s peers disagree with him anyway, and the research supports them, so the pointing out of his bias is merely an afterthought now.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 1:07:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After reading this article, I’ve been having a browse of various breast cancer studies - those NOT based on the scientifically discredited ‘recall’ method used by Huang (and also used by those equally ludicrous studies ‘proving’ that women are as violent as men).

Scientifically endorsed ‘cohort’-based studies all show absolutely no link between breast cancer and abortion. In fact, some even show a negative correlation.

Also, China’s age-standardised breast cancer rates per 100,000 have only increased from approximately 18 in 1973 to 22 in 2012. How anyone can form a hypothesis on such a miniscule national increase is anyone’s guess.

And in the US, age-standardised breast cancer rates per 100,000 have increased from 110 in 1975 to 130 in 2012. Interestingly, breast cancer rates actually started to decrease after the year 2000, that is, 28 years after Roe versus Wade. Go figure. (The main explanation for the down-trend is the significant decrease in HRT.)

Compare this also to the increase in prostate cancer rates per 100,000 throughout the West, which have increased four-fold since 1975 – from approximately 30 in 1975 to 120 in 2012. In Australia, it has increased 2.5 times since 1998.

Obviously, there is something men are doing that is bringing on this disastrous epidemic that is irresponsibly leaving families fatherless, husband-less, brother-less and son-less. We MUST do something to protect men from themselves and the terrible pain and grief they cause their families by dying.

I have no proof of course, but I suspect it's got something to do with all the sex men are having (because sex is what is behind just about every evil in the world). We MUST pass laws that put extremely strict quotas on men's sexual activity. One day they'll thank us for this.
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 2:44:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agronomist,

Thanks for the link to the article written from a similar position as the one Suseonline linked to. I could find only the one piece directly from Brind that you also quoted:

"With a new belief in a meaningful universe, I felt compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose … By 1991, I realized that my understanding of life was incompatible with a pro-abortion point of view."

Well, should not every e.g. medical researcher “use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose”?

Anyhow, no mention in this quote of “spiritual awakening” or admission that Brind's world view preferences played a role in the methods - hence findings - of his research, although he clearly proclaims his world view and offers an interpretation (which we might or might not accept) of his findings that agrees with it.

Would you therefore find suspicious also findings by scientists who make known their atheist position, and even claim that their findings support this position?

I found Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” full of passages where he wears his atheism on his sleeve, however it did not affect my respect for what he wrote about evolutionary biology where he is a specialist. I would only have been suspicious had he offered his belief or disbelief (about God) as a SCIENTIFIC argument.

Carl Sagan, Stephen Weinberg, Stephen Hawking would be other examples of scientists, whose contribution to physics I hold in high esteem in spite of their openly proclaimed atheism.

On the other hand, as some here already indicated, one can accept Brind’s research results on their face value (for reasons I as a non-specialist cannot judge) without agreeing with his interpretation or recommendations. After all, it is almost generally agreed that there is a link between smoking and lung cancer although the need to make smoking illegal is not a generally accepted consequence.

AJ Phillips,

Please note that I was referring to “debates about the meaning or acceptance of scientific findings” not to debates about the meaning or acceptance of terms like ‘lying for Jesus’ or ‘creationist claims’ that you mention.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 6:31:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy