Philo are you the counsel who acted for these women or are you quoting some esteemed personage?

My immediate reaction is CODSWALLOP and I am speaking from a personal rather than theoretical view point.

Jonathan Clark, attorney for the 19-year-old Plaintiff, says he believes the judgment "makes a pretty powerful statement about the science, indicating the clinic was not willing to argue against the claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer".

It has taken the World Health Organisation decades to warn that the contraceptive pill is a Class l carcinogen, in the same category as tobacco and asbestos, and no doubt it may take decades for WHO, wedded to the ideology of population control, to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer. However, women need the truth NOW, and especially on facts about which there is no scientific dispute: that the younger a woman is when she has her first full-term pregnancy, the lower her risk of breast cancer. Conversely, women who have no children or only have children after age 30 are at increased risk. One wonders why our Cancer Councils have not used the high-profile case of a celebrity who had breast cancer, to advise women to give priority to having babies over career, especially when breast cancer is the major killer of pre-menopausal women, and the third major cause of death in post-menopausal women.

There was a 40% increase in the incidence of breast cancer between 1987 – 1997, twenty-eight to thirty-eight years after the de facto legalisation of abortion following the Menhennitt and Levine rulings in Victoria and NSW.
There is no space to cite all the studies linking abortion with infertility, but there are many well-known cases such as Germaine Greer.

In my view pregnancy counselling services would be derelict in their duty if they did not warn women of their increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and psychological trauma following abortion.

Charles Francis AM, QC.
Honorary Legal Adviser, Endeavour Forum Inc.


Col,
To claim to-be Christian but reject the plain expression of scriptures that: “human life begins at conception” doesn’t give your position verifiable Divine authority to make the claim that it represents an orthodox Christian position. Person’s identifying themselves as Christians but holding variant positions to Scripture cannot claim it’s Christian orthodoxy

Philo - You can pretend “exclusivity” by suggesting “Person’s identifying themselves as Christians but holding variant positions to Scripture cannot claim it’s Christian orthodoxy” but you cannot enforce it by either moral of statutory means.

Just as you cannot enforce or inflict your will on women who choose to exercise the free will which God gave them, against your personal wishes.

It is simple. The “Orthodoxy” which you claim does not actually "define" or "describe" a Christian. If it did, you might be on to something but until it does, you are simply using a form of pretentious “exclusiveness” protect your view, instead of a (far superior) “quality of reason”.

In short “dogmatism” just don’t cut it (except with the insecure and easily intimidated)

Philo,

Interesting situation we have here where a purported clinical risk is “established” through tort law, rather than through science. It’s yet another tactic used by the anti abortion lobby to harass abortion providers and their clients. At least they’re not rocking up to clinics with guns (usually).

I might have read your cut and paste wrong, but none of the cases went to court. The fact that the cases were settled in favour of the plaintiff says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the case. Medical indemnity insurers frequently choose to settle cases because it’s substantially cheaper than winning them (let alone taking the risk of losing them), as there is no way of recovering costs from an impecunious plaintiff with a pro bono QC and an axe to grind. And you can bet these would be a very expensive actions to defend, given the lack of precedent and the emotions involved.

In reality claims of causing psychiatric damage are very difficult to prove or deny in a court setting, and generally boil down to who can get the best hired gun expert, and the luck of the day. The clinical evidence is pretty clear: see, for example, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/119/10/980 , but that’s not, unfortunately, how our legal system works.

As for breast cancer, the risk is lowest in those who get pregnant as teenagers. Are you suggesting this is what we should recommend as an optimal health strategy for girls?

Philo, if I followed your holy book, I'd have to kill my neighbour
for working on the sabbath. My neighbour is actually a really nice
fellow, I have no intention of following your scriptures!

You really should put down your so called holy book and pay more
attention to the laws of nature. Life of any species will always
be created in far greater numbers then can ever survive.

Human life is worth what it is, to the beholder. A woman who has
had 8 kids and is denied the snip by the lobbyists of the Catholic
Church, finds that yet another life is a threat to the wellbeing of
her previous 8 offspring. A couple of have never had a child, may
well think that a new human life is something special.

You and your wife have no doubt flushed many potential human lives
down your toilet, even you realised that you could not keep them
all.

Lives of any species will always be created in far larger numbers
then can ever survive. Ignore nature at your peril. IMHO its far
more important to focus on concious suffering. If you really care
about people and other species, do what you can do reduce suffering,
not be obsessed about so called holy books.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die

sorry being silly ;)