How's this for taking things out of context?
-
I don't believe it. It goes against common-sense for one, and the many other studies out there. The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer. Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html[^] In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436) As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm[^] Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It goes against common-sense for one
Something woefully absent in you. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
For him common sense is what ever he believes to be true. :laugh:
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It goes against common-sense for one
Something woefully absent in you. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
I don't believe it. It goes against common-sense for one, and the many other studies out there. The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer. Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html[^] In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436) As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm[^] Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
- All 12 women in the study with a family history of breast cancer, who aborted before age 18 — all 12 — got breast cancer before age 45. J. Daling, Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women, J. Nat. Ca. Inst., Vol. 86, No. 21, 11/2/94, pg. 1584
Funny thing here, that number is to low to even qualify as statistical significant, even by the surprisingly low number that I choked on in stats class. But apparently the fact that the families had a history of breast cancer is lost on you, I'd have titled this one "Women likely to get breast cancer, get breast cancer. Local idiot surprized".
-
Which for US based studies will most likely go back to both pro-life and pro-choice groups, happens to be why I prefer the studies done in Denmark and Sweden, not just for the quantity of women involved but the methodology used.
There is more funding overall from pro-abortion groups.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
-
There is more funding overall from pro-abortion groups.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
A government run study to get to the bottom of something from a government with an financial interest in getting the truth (public health care, if the abortions cause cancer, then they are more expensive than other methods and the policies would be adjusted to try and rein in costs) is not likely going to be pro-anything. Anti-choice groups are well enough funded that I doubt they are in the minority, regardless.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
- All 12 women in the study with a family history of breast cancer, who aborted before age 18 — all 12 — got breast cancer before age 45. J. Daling, Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women, J. Nat. Ca. Inst., Vol. 86, No. 21, 11/2/94, pg. 1584
Funny thing here, that number is to low to even qualify as statistical significant, even by the surprisingly low number that I choked on in stats class. But apparently the fact that the families had a history of breast cancer is lost on you, I'd have titled this one "Women likely to get breast cancer, get breast cancer. Local idiot surprized".
Distind wrote:
But apparently the fact that the families had a history of breast cancer is lost on you, I'd have titled this one "Women likely to get breast cancer, get breast cancer. Local idiot surprized".
Sounds like an Onion article. You know, in retrospect, we could put him in almost any Onion article like that and it would work...
-
I don't believe it. It goes against common-sense for one, and the many other studies out there. The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer. Now, the main NCI acivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a "known risk factor." http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html[^] In 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British journal Lancet and acknowledged that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, "Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." (Lancet, 2/22/86, p. 436) As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm[^] Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It goes against common-sense for one
Wait...what? Common-sense would state that an abortion would cause cancer? Wow...don't know what you think common-sense is, but that's about the craziest thing I think I've heard.
-
-
I'm inclined to believe that there is a link because of the abundant number of professional studies that make a lot of sense. I see overwhelmingly obvious bias in government studies given the worldwide push to promote "family planning", the history of eugenics, and the massive amount of government funding promoting policies relating to eugenics, it is in your face bias. There is also the worldwide push to promote population reduction, and right now abortion is the number one mechanism of population control. No dissenting science identifying the link between breast cancer and abortion is going to withstand the massive amount of money being pumped into "pro-choice" propaganda campaigns and fraudulent science.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^] "/I habe an educatiomn a title and a meddal" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010 "...I am not that good" - Dalek Dave, March 4, 2010
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm inclined to believe that there is a link because of the abundant number of professional studies that make a lot of sense.
This is the same as 'I'm inclined to believe what I want to be true, and to only accept evidence that supports my worldview'. I am not a fan of abortion at all, despite the lies you've told about me in that regard. That doesn't mean I would invent reasons to oppose it, the reasons I do oppose it are enough for me, and I can live with holding my views in a world where I accept valid scientific studies, regardless of if they are useful in supporting my bias.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.