abortion and breast cancer

I'm interested in an objective review (if that's possible) - by qualified people here such as Maggie - of the information presented on these web sites:

http://www.bcpinstitute.org/factshts.htm

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com

 

i just know that it is not true that abortion puts a woman at risk for breast cancer.

 

Parity (number of babies one has) usually has a reducing effect on breast cancer. MultiParity along with breastfeeding, an even stronger reductive effect. Womyn who have babies young (teens and early twenties) have less cancer, womyn who have babies and breastfeed have less cancer, womyn who wait until later until to have children, and/or do not breastfeed have more cancer. Womyn who have NO children have the highest risk.

Yes, a lot of the research is flawed, as many times there is an agenda to those conducting it, but this can't accout for all of it. There is a theory that the sudden change in hormones which accompanies a suddenly terminated pregnancy could, at least in theory, predispose a womyn to a slightly higher risk of breast cancer. Of course, a study comparing a LARGE number of womyn who had abortions (all at the same stage of pregnancy,) a similar number of womyn with the same parity and age who had pregnancies and gave birth AND a similar number of womyn who were the same age and parity and had spontaneous misscarriage would tell us a lot more, following them through life and charting their incidence of breast cancer. AFAIK no one has done a study this intense.

I think the idea of "recall bias" (where womyn who have cancer are more likely to admit to behaviors which they think may have contributed to it) is also a controversial idea. Most womyn who have had abortions, in this day and age, are not ashamed, and will readly admit it. Then again, comparing alcohol use as a "socially unacceptable behavior" to abortion as the same, in a womyn who IS uncomfortable with her past decision to have an abortion is ridiculous.

 

Ronald Reagan chose C. Everet Coop for Surgeon General because of his (Coop's) stated anti-abortion view.

When urged to issue a warning regarding abortion and breast cancer, Coop refused, saying that the evidence was lacking and that abortion was a moral issue not a medical one.

It is good to see honesty in the abortion debate.

 

"It is good to see honesty in the abortion debate."

Aho. Often lacking.

 

Actually Raygun wanted Koop to cook up some "data" that abortion was terribly emotionally devastating, causing many mental illnesses and physically damaging to a womyn's health and reproductive system. This was not found to be true, and Koop said so, so basically, he was let go.

 

Abortion laws aren't going to change. That's just an issue to draw people to the parties.
I am pro-choice, and I don't understand pro-life at all. People use the bible as an excuse but, the bible didn't say shit about abortion, seeing as how it wasn't around yet. Also, people say "How can you kill an unborn child?", As long as it isn't the third trimester, the damn thing isn't even living.

 

If Dubya gets to nominate one or more Supreme Court Justices, this is the first thing they will go after.

 

I just heard about the Democrats changing their approach to abortion so it looks like there is a possibility of the abortion laws changing after all.

 

Let's not get embroiled in yet another tedious debate over abortion law here.

As for Koop and post-abortion trauma, I believe what he said was that further study is needed. Like the possible abortion-breast cancer link, the medical community seems hesitant to explore the issue.

 

I agree, but politics needs to stay out of it. Let the doctors do their thing, come to their conclusions, and be represented honestly. Politics has a way of souring anything it touches...

 

A Portland abortion clinic recently admitted that it was negligent in not providing information about the increased risk of breast cancer and emotional trauma resulting from abortion:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1156.html

In other news, infamous late-term abortionist George "the killer" Tiller just sent another woman to her death:

http://www.lifenews.com/state858.html

 

I'm surprised that nobody here ever commented on the lawsuit I mentioned above.

 

If abortion was linked to breast cancer, then wouldn't miscarriages be as well? All an abortion is is an elective miscarriage. I mean, hell, some people thinks BRAS can cause breast cancer.

 

That's a good question. I'll have to check into it.

 

I've got an idea. Instead of wasting so much time and energy fighting over abortion why don't Repubs and Dems get together to figure out ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore reduce the number of abortions?

 

well, gee, that might involve teaching kids something more than abstinence-only sex ed, and we all know that's just crazy talk!

 

Booboo & ihmurria,

I refer you to post #11 above. Let's not get sidetracked here, please.

 

That's what I was wondering. About 75% of all pregnancies are aborted naturally. Has anyone found ties to miscarriage and breast cancer? Or is it something about an elective abortion that causes the increased risk?

Most natural miscarriages happen at very early stages of pregnancy, many times even before the woman knows she is pregnant. Elective abortions happen at later times, once (of course) the woman has found out she is pregnant. Maybe the link is in that somewhere?

Let me know what you find, Huck. I think that is there is such a risk women DEFINITELY need to be informed of it when considering abortion.