In 2003, acting under the auspices of the U.S. National Cancer Institute,
researcher Dr. Louise Brinton declared that it was well established
that there is no abortion-breast cancer link.
She has now reversed her position and admits that women who have had abortions
face a 40% increased risk of contracting breast cancer.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010706.html
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Brind_Dolle_2009_analysis.PDF

Should Australian women be told of this development,
or would this be anti-choice?

I Googled it. Before forming an opinion I'll wait until an agency not run by fundamentalist Christians reports and asks some relevant questions.

Christians don't have a great track record on reporting the statements of scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context#Quote_mining

40% increased risk of contracting breast cancer?.
And a 100% less risk of complications in pregnancy.

I could be wrong, but I'd suggest that perhaps Herman has
a hidden agenda here, like hoping that Xtians will outbreed
Muslims etc.

Sorry, its not going to work.

Herman, don't you mean the the multivariate adjusted case-control odds ratios among women 45 y of age and younger, from case studies of primary invasive breast cancers within the three-county Seattle metropolitan area, diagnosed between January 1, 1983, and December 31, 1992? Where unordered polytomous logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios as an approximation of the relative risk and found that ever having and abortion produced an odds ratio of 1.4 with 95% CIs between 0.9-2.2 for triple negative breast cancer and 1.1-1.8 for all breast cancers?
Which, if extrapolated to the wider population using the National Cancer Institute's (USA) 12.7 percent of women born in the United States today will develop breast cancer at some time in their lives, means that the relative risk is maybe an extra 5%. For the more dangerous triple negative breast cancers though, since non-black women have about a 11-13% rate of breast cancer being the triple-negative type, it may raise your chances by a whopping 0.5%! (if you're not black that is, black women have a three times higher rate of triple negative cancers, where ~30% of breast cancer cases are triple-negative).

Assuming of course that the few hundred women interviewed in Seattle are representative of the wider world of course.

Yes, I think all women should be informed of this if they are concerned. No, I don't believe that it would be anti-choice to do so.

Herman, you couldn't give a damn about the remote possibility that abortion could 'cause' breast cancer.

You would just like to stop all legal abortions and go back to the 'good old days' where women churned out one baby after another, without any choice. Don't hold your breath on that one Herman.

There are far more 'natural abortions' (miscarriages) that occur amongst women than through surgical/medical abortions.
Shall we look into the lives of all these women and see if their God-given miscarriages 'caused' breast cancer among them too?

Herman,

There was never a new study, just data mining of the old study.

If you really look at the study, you will see that about 900 women are studied, most of whom were using a version of the pill, a portion of whom fell pregnant, a smaller portion of whom had abortions, and of whom a tiny fraction developed breast cancer.

If for example 7 develop BC instead of the average expected 5, this may be a statistically significant 40% increase. However, it could also be entirely due to chance, or other factors.

This is at best an indication that further research is required, not a signal that the religious loonies can begin baying from the roof tops.

I seem to recall Herman once claiming not to be a Christian fundy.

However, he sure seems to walk like a duck, talk like a duck and keep the company of ducks...

Shadow you beat me to it again.
Nothing much else for me to say.

And Herman, can I ask were you actually aware of those bits of information Shadow provided? (Which you can see for yourself on your own article).

But thanks for the data, it really helps!

Most abortions - I'd be willing to suggest - aren't done for lifestyle choice - which is the only reason an increased risk of breast cancer would affect your decision making.

What religions ARE pro-choice 'by default'?.

Sorry, and why can't someone be pro-life without being Christian?

Hermie,
SM has it right and is being polite.
Sorry old boy but the test methodology specifically the the sample size was flawed. No kewpi doll or ceegar.
This proves nothing of any value.
I hope the govt didn't pay for the research WO flaming T

StG,
Why not indeed?
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Despite the numerous deaths caused through unnatural sex it does not stop the behaviour of those who continue to practice it. I doubt whether any clear evidence would also change the behaviour of those who claim it is their right to kill even if it is detrimental to their own health. Man's arrogance towards his Maker knows no bounds. The responses of the above reveal this clearly. The amazing thing is that people seemed surprised when they get their just deserts despite God offering a way out of their depravity.

Runner,

You sound frustrated that you can't get laid, and by your hysterical ranting I'm not surprised.

Although facts or study have never been a cornerstone of your posts, perhaps sticking your neck out so far as to read what others have written might help to prevent your posts appearing so incoherent and off topic.

STG and Herman,

While many non christians oppose abortion for themselves, few are sufficiently self righteous to believe that they should impose their opinions on anyone else.

I notice that Herman's link after several years has only a few members.

Shadow MInister writes

'While many non christians oppose abortion for themselves, few are sufficiently self righteous to believe that they should impose their opinions on anyone else.'

Oh I see that is why you have just made your opinions known as you are often quick to do.

StG: << Sorry, and why can't someone be pro-life without being Christian? >>

Of course people can be anti-choice without being Christian.

However, Herman seems only to ever post comments that are homophobic, Islamophobic, and now anti-abortion. He frequently refers to fundy Christian websites as sources for what pass as his arguments, as in this case.

Seems very consistent with the unholy trinity of fundy Christianity to me. Like I said, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, keeps the company of ducks...

I don't think our Herman is a very honest fundy. But what's new about that?

<< I seem to recall Herman once claiming not to be a Christian fundy. >>

Yeah, that's his schtick. He wants to give the impression that he's just a secular Ausralian who happens to find Catholic dogma really, really compelling. After all, if a non-religious rational thinker like HermanYutic is into Catholicism, maybe it makes sense after all!

I gave him a good caning over it here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2714&page=0#61329

Notice that Herman thinks secularists describe themselves as "denying Christ". Not that they don't believe, or are non-religious, but that they deny Christ. The next time someone asks what your religious beliefs are, CJ, be categorical. Say you deny Christ, deny Mohammed, deny Buddha...

StG- as a matter of fact I have seen a few atheists who are anti abortion- however, they usually fit snuggly into one or more of the following camps:

-People that were brought up in dogmatic catholic backgrounds, stopped being religious but maintained much of their other baggage.

-People that idolize 'right wing' figures and sycophantically mimic their every stance (which often means an anti-abortion stance to pander to authoritarian types or Christians. Also these types tend to also be against public-funded medicine.

-People that like controlling others

-People that resent the promiscuous circumstances leading to the pregnancy (confirmed by the line "its ok if she were raped though" for political correctness only- meaning the supposed sanctity of life stops when it wasn't the result of sinful shenadigans).

I've yet to see an example that goes outside these parameters- or isn't just simply a Christian anyway.

Usually the only times I've seen atheists not staunchly part of these criteria arguing against abortion, they've only done so for the sake of playing devils advocate to stimulate debate.

Runner,

Expressing my opinion that everyone should be able to choose, is hardly imposing my opinion on others. Anti choice activists wish to strip others of their choice to exercise their rights.

Herman,

Having found out what a Grogan is, I find your posts both childish and vile. Added to your bigotry, and intolerance gives you an impressive CV for the KKK.

STG

The pro life / pro choice debate is almost exclusively split along fundementalist religious / non religious lines, while there are exceptions, they are very few.

King Hazza,
Are you aware of Roe v Wade,
the seminal legal case that legalised abortion in the USA?
The plaintiff Roe in the case was later revealed as Norma McCorvey.
I wonder if she fits your mold?
Roe v. McCorvey:
http://www.leaderu.com/common/roev.html
Interestingly, she claims never to have had an abortion.

What a fascinating link, HermanYutic.

>>The plaintiff Roe in the case was later revealed as Norma McCorvey.
I wonder if she fits your mold?<<

I had no idea that she was such an interesting person.

"Her grandmother was a prostitute and fortuneteller. Her father was a television repairman, her mother an alcoholic. Part Cajun, part Cherokee Indian, and raised as a Jehovah's Witness, Norma Leah Nelson was 10 when she took money from the gas station where she worked to run away from home. After that, her education came from reform schools until the ninth grade. By the time she was 15, she had been sexually assaulted by a nun and a male relative of her mother's. At 16, she married an itinerant steel worker, Woody McCorvey, who, she says, beat her. She left him and returned to her mother's house in Dallas with plans to raise her unborn child alone.

But after her daughter, Melissa, was born and Ms. McCorvey confided in her mother that her sexual preference was for women, she says, her mother kidnapped Melissa, banished Ms. McCorvey from the house and raised her granddaughter herself...

What followed for her were years of alcohol and drug abuse, and jobs as varied as bartender and carnival barker. After an affair with a co-worker resulted in a second pregnancy when she was 19, she gave the baby up for adoption...

By the time she had another affair and was pregnant with her third child, which became the Roe baby, she was 21. "I never considered myself a lesbian then," she recalls. "My mother put it into my head that I was bisexual. I only ever slept with four or five men, but I got pregnant with three of them. With women it wasn't so easy to get pregnant."

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/28/garden/at-home-with-norma-mccorvey-of-roe-dreams-and-choices.html

To be fair to King Hazza, it would take a demographic genius to have fit this individual into any specific "mold" at all.

Incidentally, is it significant that the site you referred us to is sponsored by "the faculty outreach and training arm of Campus Crusade for Christ International?"

As I said Herman it would not matter what evidence came light. Imagine the outcry if honest statistics were published on the link between sodomy and disease and death. You have as much chance of the secular Government publishing that as you would an honest paper on climate science. The same goes with negative affects on woman having abortions. They know they can give a few more drugs to numb the guilt when it enviably comes. Thankfully many look to God's Word for truth. It remains unchanged and still contains by far the most healthy lifestyles. Thank God many women have turned to Him for healing and forgiveness. Hopefully a few of the butchers might also find a conscience.

It boils down to one very simple question about where one believes life begins. Some people believe a foetus or a bunch of cells is not the same as a living 'out of womb' person who has earned the rights we endow to the living by virtue of being born.

Abortion for most women I imagine is a difficult decision and one that is not taken lightly in most cases. This would suggest that those 'life defining' issues are not easily or clearly defined otherwise the decision would not be fraught with such emotional quandary. Perhaps partly because of our Judeo-Christian heritage but I think it goes further than that - humans possess a natural instinct to preserve life generally. The issues here are who defines when life begins? How old should a foetus be when it is no longer considered ethical to abort?

These are all difficult questions. The problem is that amid those sorts of questions are questions about rights. There is a bunch of conflicting, competing and interwoven rights that make it very much a personal choice of the woman concerned.

One thing is for certain is that abortion has always been around and will always continue regardless of religiosity. Hopefully we won't see a return to the unsanitary backyard abortion clinics of old.

Catholics and Muslims have abortions as do many others. Religiosity in itself does not prevent abortions. Catholics historically have sought abortions for many reasons such as denial of contraception which led to large families, poverty and risk to health of the primary carer, the mother.

runner,
Here's an interesting story by
"a...butcher (who found) a conscience"
after performing an estimated 75,000 abortions:
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

Here's another one about the director of an abortion clinic
who "found a conscience".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html

King Hazza,
I'm not sure that the ex-abortionist (above)
fits your mold either.

Tp perform 75,000 abortions you would have to do 10 a day for more than 20 years, not stopping for weekends or holidays and that Dr. Nathanson's biography says that he was licenced to practice in 1952 and became a pro-life advaocate in the mid seventies, this means that he must have been performing more than 10 a day, every day of his medical career, when they were illegal. It seems he only stopped after they we allowed. I'm surprised that he had time to do anything else (and that he wasn't arrested and imprisoned).

I'm sorry, I just don't find this guy credible.

You continually open my eyes, HermanYutic

>>King Hazza, I'm not sure that the ex-abortionist (above) fits your mold either.<<

I expect you have forgotten in all the excitement, but KH was talking about the motivation of pro-life atheists.

[KH]"I've yet to see an example that goes outside these parameters- or isn't just simply a Christian anyway."

I am sure he is delighted that you are diligently finding more and more evidence to prove his case for him.

You are simply trailing before us yet another batch of pro-life christians.

>>Here's an interesting story by "a...butcher (who found) a conscience" after performing an estimated 75,000 abortions<<

And here's another "interesting story". An interview in which the same "butcher" displays his true ethical colours.

http://www.barf.org/articles/0010/

Another "my logic is my religion's logic" single-tracker, with just a teeny tinge of self-righteous hypocrisy.

Yum.

Plus you provide a great example of the kind of thrusting, ground-breaking journalism that has made Fox news the byword for... whatever it is the byword for.

Beat-up, perhaps.

"Johnson... had no way to prove her allegations about practices at the Bryan branch."

The entire weight of Fox resources couldn't cobble together the teensiest scrap of evidence?

What a surprise. But without the unsupported allegations, there wouldn't be a story, would there?

On the KH test, she's just another god-botherer.

As the lady says...

"I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart ... a spiritual conversion."

And what organization did she join?

A "Christian pro-life organization made up of over 60 churches"

How does she spend her time?

She has "joined pro-life groups in praying outside the building where she once worked."

Good for her.

But atheist? Don't think so.

bugsy,

Well spotted; my mistake.
When he said personally responsible for I took it to mean personally performed.
I should have used the same phrase as him, "personally responsible for".

"I set up a clinic, the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (C.R.A.S.H.), which operated in the east side of Manhattan. It had 10 operating rooms, 35 doctors, 85 nurses. It operated seven days a week, from 8 am to midnight. We did 120 abortions every day in that clinic. At the end of the two years that I was the director, we had done 60,000 abortions. I myself, with my own hands, have done 5,000 abortions. I have supervised another 10,000 that residents have done under my direction. So I have 75,000 abortions in my life."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30098

The Pro-Choice Action Network vouches for his veracity:
"Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion provider turned anti-choice, is a high-profile anti-abortion speaker and author from New York, who advocates the murder of doctors when they are "about to perform an abortion". He is the creator of the discredited film Silent Scream. Joan Andrews-Bell acted as his sponsor and godmother when he converted to Catholicism. CANADA: Nathanson spoke in BC in May 2000 at the Focus for Life dinner sponsored by the Pro-Life Society of BC and the Vancouver Catholic Archdiocese. Nathanson's presence helped raise about $100,000 for the two groups."
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/0102win.shtml

Periculitis,
Nathanson "described himself as a "Jewish Atheist" and later converted to Catholicism in 1996",
some 2 decades years after his pro-life "conversion".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

Well he would say that, wouldn't he (apologies to Mandy Rice-Davies.

>>Nathanson "described himself as a "Jewish Atheist" and later converted to Catholicism in 1996"<<

But I think both KH and I would concede, he needs an entire "atheist pro-life" category to himself.

How about "attention-seeking opportunist self-promoter"?

Does that work for you, King Hazza?

Here's some insight that, coincidentally, provides support to Bugsy's reservations on the guy.

http://my.opera.com/JoanRC/blog/2009/11/26/review-of-the-hand-of-god-and-silent-scream

"The Silent Scream was, is, an astonishing mix of half truths, distortion, diabolically clever deceptions and outright lies"

Hmmm. That, from a fellow doctor. Can't be good.

"I couldnt decide if Nathanson was an outright charlatan, or simply an ignorant but well-meaning crackpot, or if he was a flagrantly immoral opportunist whose pre-Roe v. Wade abortion business had been significantly impacted... and was now eager to cash in on the video and lecture circuit."

Tough words.

"Trying to rationalize his remarkable turnabout... Nathanson states that ...”In reality, we knew very little about the fetus and had never seen it except as chopped-up, dismembered flesh or as a just-delivered infant.” Dr. Nathanson can make such a statement without fear of contradiction from members of the general public, but... this is an obvious fabrication. Any second year resident on any busy Ob/Gyn service will have seen with their own eyes several, perhaps scores of, spontaneously aborted but temporarily living fetuses in various stages of development outside the womb."

Oooo-er.

"For Nathanson to say that he had no idea about what was developing in the pregnant womb prior to the advent of obstetrical ultrasound, and that this modality was the reason for his dramatic change of heart is not just disingenuous, but is almost inexpressably silly"

The guy's a fraud.

Disown him.

Pericles,

From reading the text watching the videos, I get the strong impression that he believes what he says as he says it, regardless of the actual truth. I wonder if he wouldn't qualify as having Sociopathic tendencies rather than reformed or a Christian.

I see him largely in the type of a smart "Chopper Reid". He has and I suggest still would, do/say what ever it takes to achieve his *Personal* ends, what ever they are, and bugger all with the cause.
Too many things just don't add up.

Hermie has a credibility problem, in that he's representing the extraordinary as the norm. Almost all his 'evidence' is clearly more than two standard deviations from the mean. He cites news paper sensation and poor science as empirical evidence!

Likewise, his quotations of the Suras and Koran, As CJ alludes, he sees everything in the extremes and literal and projects that on others. i.e. he sees the world through fundamentalist's eyes and hence assumes fundamentalist threats.

Indeed Pericles- I'm afraid my pigeon-holing is too narrow to accommodate, so far, only Norma McCorvey (I'll leave it at that for the moment). Nathanson officially converting to Catholocism not too long after he changed his abortion stance doesn't quite fall short, I'm sorry to say.

And Runner- again, this is the second time I'll respond to you (as I'm guessing you will speed read this, if at all), mostly because it brings me back to my question to Herman;
You mentioned 'honest statistics'- well we gave you the honest statistic already, and brought up a few direct references to the article posted and pointed out that it was through DRUG induced abortions/miscarriages (with no mention of surgery), that lead to only a potential increase in breast cancer.

But go ahead and spread the word- so long as you spread the precise phrase I wrote above or else your statement might be viewed as dishonest and deceptive- and you're definetely not the type to stoop to that.
Also, go ahead and tell the 'sodomites' (an incredibly unrelated group to anyone but yourself) that they will get cancer for their 'activities'- of course, if your study boiled down to lack of condoms you will again look quite silly.

But on that note Herman, I want to ask you- were you aware of the overall data and details of your own study?

While we're asking questions of the delightful Herman...

Herman, are you a Christian?

A yes or no will do.

Sorry, thanks for the replies to my queries too.

I'm Christian pro-choice/anti-lifestyle abortions. I lost a kid to a lifestyle choice of an ex. Never really gotten over it. There's a place for abortions, and although women shouldn't be vilified for lifestyle abortions I think it's up to the individual to deal with the consequences of bad, but conscious decision.

If you REALLY don't want kids, don't have sex, or take the morning after pill. Knowing I had NO say in the situation was one of the hardest experiences I've been through.

STG, et al

The legal issue with abortion is that a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body. And as much as you cannot be forced to donate organs or blood to save someone else, she cannot be forced to carry a child. The issue of when life begins is actually irrelevant.

If the courts decided that the mother rights could be over ridden, then likewise people could be forced to donate blood etc.

Most people that terminate their pregnancies do so with a lot of anguish, generally because becoming a single mother will seriously affect their education, careers etc. Calling it a "life style choice" is flippant and as relevant as calling euthanasia a "life style choice".

Finally saying "If you REALLY don't want kids, don't have sex" is as nonsensical as saying "If you REALLY don't want to get, don't eat."

My ex couldn't wait to get rid of it. Not saying that says anything but who she is as a person, she was awesome and we still keep in touch, but she was in her early 20's and just didn't want a kid at that time. She wanted to see the world, and did, and she knew at the time if she had a child she wouldn't be able to when she wanted.

Life style, choice. It was a relief for her as it is for many others that have abortions.

...and you chose to miss the bit about the birth control I mentioned.

"Life style choice" may not be a best label for it but it describes the circumstances surrounding the decision. Don't be so sensitive.

STG,

The term "life style choice" was spawned by the anti choice / pro life campaigners as spin precisely to infer that it is a small adjustment in the way one lives ones life, when for those that choose termination, the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy can be severe, and permanent. For those that want:

an education,
to establish a career,
to choose a life time partner,
to live where they wish,

This can all come to a screeching halt with an unwanted child, and to call it a life style choice is deliberately misleading.

For example, I know of a woman who could not take up a job interstate, as the "father" had visitation rights and would not permit the move. etc. She works as a medical technician, as she had to quit university, and is still single, and from a brief encounter is tied to a man she now despises, who contributes almost nothing to raising the child.

"Life style choice"?

The desire to have sex for youngsters is strong and often emotionally based and those that for what ever reason incorrectly use the contraceptive, or it fails, why should they get a "life sentence".

SM
I hereby give you temporary membership to the my version of Humanism.(until your next pro Liberal, pro capitalist, hell with human rave that is. ) :-) :-)

Does this mean we can abort the 'mad monk' ? (joke)

SM
#$#@* wrong button! I should have added
....and call it a VERY late termination.

and of course giving the baby up to one of the numerous desperate parents to be on the adoption list is not a choice for those who make a lifestyle choice. There is nothing more selfish and self serving than this kind of justification.

Ex,

I have long been an advocate of involuntary euthanasia for the likes of Abbot and Rudd, (possibly all politicians) to put and end to the unnecessary suffering (ours)

Runner, would you give up yours to be raised by atheists?

Rusty

I do not classify myself as a Christian to do so would be to lump myself into another stereotype, and the fundamentalists have made this a bad thing.
I do however believe that when it is life threatening, then a termination may be necessary, but as for life choice, no.

If I miss a turn off on the freeway I don't race across the 3 lanes to dart up the ramp at the last minute. I go to the next exit and either come back and do it right, or I find an alternate way.

This means, that for every action there is a re-action, if we make a mistake there are consequences, removing the consequences removes the need to take care.

I also do not believe in life sentences for minor offences, now I am not saying getting pregnant is minor, but the act may have been.

Adoption is the answer, I am adopted, and I have had the good fortune to have met a brother and sister who were adopted, and one brother that was not.

Having to go through the pregnancy and giving up your child is the consequence, your consequence. Keeping him in poverty and abuse etc, is a consequence to the child, as is death (abortion), but he has done no wrong.

Of course there are medical and psychological risks with adoption, but they are less than those of abortion.

I am glad I am adopted, so are my brother and sister.

and as for pre-natal screening, we go right off the track here. One of the biggest groups screened for is Down's Syndrome, they I believe, are higher on the evolutionary ladder than we are.

Give me a city full of adopted children and people with Down's Syndrome, for it would be a happpier place.

The link between triggers causes for breast cancer and abortion is not new. Once a woman falls pregnant changes occurr in the body to accomodate the developing child. The breast is one area where changes occurr. If the child is surgically aborted the effects immediatley traumatise the mothers chemistry, in the case of a natural abortion of a child the chemistry of the mothers body recognises the change to the child she is carrying and adapts more naturally. There is clinical evidence that surgical trauma may act as a trigger to form cancer in some women. Women ought to be told that when seeking an abortion.