The Forum > Article Comments > Abortion breast cancer link explodes in Asia > Comments
Abortion breast cancer link explodes in Asia : Comments
By Joel Brind, published 12/8/2014The 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%.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- ›
- All
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 11:00:42 AM
| |
Sorry Mr. Brind, but I tend to believe organizations such as the Breast Cancer Network of Australia, and the CEO Maxine Morand has recently spoken out against this very subject in the Herald Sun (22-7-2014).
“The Cancer Australia review of evidence of breast cancer risks references all risks for breast cancer including a section specifically on pregnancy termination, and it is not a risk,” says Ms Morand. “I go to a lot of conferences where people such as professors of epidemiology at Oxford University speak in detail about what the risks are, and what the reproductive factors are, and abortion is not one of them.” She states that they have cited 53 references re causes of breast cancer, and abortion is not amongst them. I am sure you have chosen to ignore all these references? She goes on to condemn the actions of 2 Liberal politicians who support this unproved link between abortion and breast cancer in order to push their pro-life barrow at some silly 'Family Conference" later this month in Australia. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/why-are-we-supporting-abortion-scaremongers/story-fni0fhk1-1226996730358?nk=415cebeb4091ce27fa8739234645f413 Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 12:01:34 PM
| |
So after about 36 hours there are still no scientific refutations of Dr Brind's article?
As Dr Johnson once said "If you have nothing to say then say nothing". That would be good advice for some of the contributors to this debate. Nobody can refute the article or Brind's argument about the link between abortion and breast cancer. So why not accept reality and ask your representative to present legislation to deal with this problem? Posted by Gadfly42, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 1:23:41 PM
| |
Gadfly, you are just being stubborn now.
You only need to have a basic look at the subject "Debunking the theory that abortion is linked to Breast Cancer" on Google, and a plethora of evidence comes up. I can't be bothered pasting it all in here because I know you won't read the links! So I found the best one to post....that from the American Cancer Society....because you obviously take no notice of the Aussie breast cancer sites. "The largest, and probably the most reliable, study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In this study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. All of the information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries – it was very complete and was not influenced by recall bias. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. The size of this study and the manner in which it was done provide good evidence that induced abortion does not affect a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer." http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer So there you see, the Danes got all their data straight from medical registries and did not need to have religiously motivated scientists 'looking for the link" .... Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 1:44:40 PM
| |
Susieonline, you need to know a bit more about the 1997 Melbye Danish study. While claiming to be based on government health registers and therefore not subject to “recall bias”, Melbye did not record abortions performed before Danish records were computerised in 1973, even though abortion was partly legalised in Denmark in 1939 and each abortion was recorded in a government register.
So women who had abortions before 1973 and later developed breast cancer were wrongly recorded by Melbye as not having had an abortion. Moreover Melbye included young women who had had an abortion shortly before the end of the study – but were too young to have shown any sign of breast cancer, which takes at least 8-10 years to be detectable. These serious flaws were pointed out in a letter published in a prestigious medical journal, but Melbye has not retracted his study. A recalculation of the Danish data and found a significant link between abortion and breast cancer. Posted by Edmund Burke, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 3:17:49 PM
| |
Where is your proof on these studies Edmund, and how come neither the US or Australian cancer organizations still don't acknowledge this supposed link between abortion and breast cancer?
Even should there be a small possibility of a link, what difference will that make? If the current proven links between diet and Western lifestyles and breast cancer are not taken seriously by many women, what makes you think it will make any woman think twice about it if she wants to have an abortion? The predominantly male, Christian, pro-life people are really clutching at straws here. It is no one else's business, other than the parents and doctor, if an abortion is being considered Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 4:20:17 PM
|
What do you expect to be done if a link between abortion and breast cancer could be established?
As I said earlier, your research does nothing for the anti-abortionists’ argument. A woman’s right to autonomy and control over her own uterus overrides the rights of the fetus. If a two-year-old needs a kidney transplant, and the mother is the only one who can provide it in time, should the mother then be forced to provide that child with a kidney? Of course not and therein lies the contradiction in the anti-abortionists’ stance: they endow fetuses with more rights than they would a child. If your life is contingent on someone else’s body, then they have a right to say no to that. Fetuses have a right to live, but they don’t have a right to live at somebody else’s expense. By believing that they do, you are granting them special rights that you would deny to people who have already been born.
It is for these reasons that the best you could hope for, if you are right, is that it may deter a small proportion of women. You would be far better off doing something to change attitudes towards contraception advice and services, and sex and sex education, so that they are not done in an atmosphere of embarrassment and secrecy as they are in the US; which has higher rates of abortion compared to countries with healthier attitudes towards sex such as the Netherlands, which has the lowest rates of abortion. The fact that you aren’t suggests that you are a zealot who is only interested in an outright ban on abortion - which will never happen, because most people’s thoughts are not so clouded by religious belief that they cannot understand the fundamental point that I have made above.
If you believe that what I have said is invalidated by the fact that a fetus has a soul, then great, find evidence for this belief and get back to us. But it is disingenuous to pretend that your primary concern is women’s health.