Study shows abortion is ‘best predictor of breast cancer’

[J]

Ladies, abortion kills; and it's not just your baby's life, it's your's too.








http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/oct/07100307








WASHINGTON, DC, October 3, (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled, "The
Breast Cancer Epidemic." It showed that, among seven risk factors,
abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer," and fertility is also
a useful predictor.

The study by Patrick Carroll of PAPRI in London showed that countries
with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a
substantial increase in breast cancer incidence. Where abortion rates
are low (i.e., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller
increase is expected. Where a decline in abortion has taken place,
(i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.

Carroll used the same mathematical model for a previous forecast of
numbers of breast cancers in future years for England & Wales based on
cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting
cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004.

In four countries - England & Wales, Scotland, Finland and Denmark - a
social gradient has been discovered (unlike that for other cancers)
whereby upper class and upwardly mobile women have more breast cancer
than lower class women. This was studied in Finland and Denmark and the
influence of known risk factors other than abortion was examined, but
the gradient was not explained.

Carroll suggests that the known preference for abortion in this class
might explain the phenomenon. Women pursuing higher educations and
professional careers often delay marriage and childbearing. Abortions
before the birth of a first child are highly carcinogenic.

Carroll used national data from nations believed to have "nearly
complete abortion counts." Therefore, his study is not affected by
recall bias.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
commented on the latest findings stating: "It’s time for scientists to
admit publicly what they already acknowledge privately among themselves
- that abortion raises breast cancer risk - and to stop conducting
flawed research to protect the medical establishment from massive
medical practice lawsuits."





See the new study online here:
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf














--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

http://www.americandecency.org/

[Uirgil]

In article <643rhp....@news.alt.net>, J <jdyo...@ymail.com>
wrote:

> Ladies, abortion kills; and it's not just your baby's life, it's your's too.

Not according to the VERY BEST Medical and Science studies:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-lin
ked-to-breast-cancer
Conclusion
The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most
challenging aspects of studies of people and how those studies do or do
not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion
generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the
most common cancer, and it is the second leading cancer killer in women.
Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the
scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any
kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.

So that those, like liar jdyoung, who claim otherwise, reveal themselves
to be totally untrustworthy, and willing to lie in support of their evil
religious prejudices and delusions.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <643rhp....@news.alt.net>, J <jdyo...@ymail.com>
wrote:

Why don't you stop with this lie.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Budikka666]

It doesn't matter what you claim anything shows, it's still not *your*
choice you worthless piece of theistic misogynistic trash.

Budikka

[Mitchell Holman]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:643rhp....@news.alt.net:

>
> Ladies, abortion kills; and it's not just your baby's life, it's
> your's too.
>
>

Childbirth is still more like to kill than abortion.


http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-
health/articles/2012/01/23/abortion-safer-for-women-than-childbirth-study-
claims


http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/22/science/la-sci-maternal-deaths-
20100523

[W.T.S.]

In article <k8827n$ms5$2...@dont-email.me>, Budi...@netscape.net says...

>
> Budikka writes:
>
> > Ladies, abortion kills; and it's not just your baby's life, it's your's
> > too.
> >

> > http://www.liesitenews.com/
> >
> > WASHINGTON, DC, October 3, (LieSiteNews.com) The Journal of American

Not to mention that "J" and his friends are habitual liars and spreaders
of disinformation and propaganda. It's why the anti-choice moments is
called, "Pro-Lie".
The abortion/cancer "link" has been disproven dozens of times, but the
pro-liars keep trying to sell it, all for the purpose of terrorizing
women into becoming gender slaves and brood sows.
How much lower can "J" and the pro-liar loons sink before they hit rock
bottom?


Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4

[yar...@aol.com]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:06:32 PM UTC-8, J wrote:
> Ladies, abortion kills; and it's not just your baby's life, it's your's too.
>
>

What you point out here may indeed be true, however, to be fair, we should point out that there are likely to be more blood poisoning cases of deaths of pregnant women due to blood poisoning because they are denied abortion when their life is threatened due to a pregnancy gone wrong. I point you to the case here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232676/Savita-Halappanavar-dies-Irish-doctors-refuse-abortion-saying-This-Catholic-country.html


I should point out that I am a pro life advocate, but when it comes to a woman's life being at stake, the woman should have the right to choose an abortion to save her life. In the case that I am pointing to, both the mother and child died due to the fact that she was denied an abortion when it was necessary to save her life. Because she was denied it, she and the child died. This is what happens when rabid pro-lifers refuse to apply good reasoning to their moral equation. It just goes to show that morons exist on both sides of this debate. Let's just be honest here.

[Syd M.]

On Nov 17, 12:06 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Ladies, abortion kills; and it's not just your baby's life, it's your's too.
>
>

Nope.
No baby is killed in an abortion, and the breast cancer/abortion link
has been found to be bogus.
You lose, misogynist.

PDW

[yar...@aol.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:44:45 AM UTC-8, Syd M. wrote:
> On Nov 17, 12:06 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ladies, abortion kills; and it's not just your baby's life, it's your's too.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Nope.
>
> No baby is killed in an abortion,

Let's see. It is growing and developing. It is taking in nourishment in order to do so. So, it is something that is living and when the abortion doctor is done, it is something that is no longer taking in nourishment and is no longer growing and developing, but it is decomposing at that point. Now, based on that series of "observations", not just a visceral emotional response, it is reasonable to conclude that something living is there prior to the act performed by the abortion doctor that results in that something no longer doing what living things do, but doing something that dead things do. So, it is in fact something alive that is killed. The question here is...what is that thing that was alive? Well, now, let's take a look at the details of that also. It is not the mother and it is not the father as it has a unique DNA signature that identifies it as something uniquely distinct from both mother and father. So, we can't say that it is actually the mother's body that is what is alive that is killed...like cutting off a finger or some other body part of the mother. If it was, it would have her DNA signature. So, we know that it is not the same thing. Furthermore, parts of the mother are not complete human beings at a certain stage of development. A fingernail is not a full human being at a certain stage of development and neither is a clump of hair. However, a developing fetus or embryo are definitely complete human beings at a certain stage of development. So, what is being killed or destroyed is a complete human being at a certain stage of development. We have laws on the book that disallow the killing of complete human beings at certain stages of human development and degree of disability at any point is not a justification for snuffing out their lives. It seems quite clear to me, that what is being destroyed is a "complete human being" at a certain stage of development and no proper justification is given for doing so in vast majority of abortions. What is the unjustified taking of a human life then? You tell me.

It seems that if anything is bogus here, it is the claim that when we speak of a fetus we are not talking about a complete human being at a certain stage of development.

[elizabeth]

On Nov 16, 10:10 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <643rhp.pqk.1...@news.alt.net>, J <jdyou...@ymail.com>

> wrote:
>
> Why don't you stop with this lie.
>
> --
> JD
>
> "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

If he doesn't lie, he can't post

[Budikka666]

Once again Christian scum J Young proves that all that Christianity
has to offer the world is hatred, intolerance, and endless demands
that everyone bow down to the tinpot gods the Christians have made of
themselves. You only have to study what these lowlifes post in Usenet
to see that.

Budikka

> jdyou...@ymail.com
>
> http://www.americandecency.org/

[W.T.S.]

In article <beccb160-c26c-4fd2...@googlegroups.com>,
yar...@aol.com says...

> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:44:45 AM UTC-8, Syd M. wrote:

> > On Nov 17, 12:06 am, J <Jerk...@Liar.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ladies, abortion kills; and it's not just your baby's life, it's your's too.
> >
> > Nope.

> > No baby is killed in an abortion.
>
> You're right, why can't pro-liars see that? They probably do, they
> just won't admit it.
>
> It seems that if anything is bogus, it's the idea that life begins at
> conception. Obviously, it doesn't, it only begins at birth.
>
> > And, the breast cancer/abortion link has been found to be bogus!
> >
> > You lose, misogynist.
> >
> > PDW

Good point!

[yar...@aol.com]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:16:51 PM UTC-8, W.T.S. wrote:
> In article <beccb160-c26c-4fd2...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> yar...@aol.com says...
>
> > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:44:45 AM UTC-8, Syd M. wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 12:06 am, J <Jerk...@Liar.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > Ladies, abortion kills; and it's not just your baby's life, it's your's too.
>
> > >
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > No baby is killed in an abortion.
>
> >
>
> > You're right, why can't pro-liars see that? They probably do, they
>
> > just won't admit it.
>
> >
>
> > It seems that if anything is bogus, it's the idea that life begins at
>
> > conception. Obviously, it doesn't, it only begins at birth.
>
> >
>
> > > And, the breast cancer/abortion link has been found to be bogus!
>
> > >
>
> > > You lose, misogynist.
>
> > >
>
> > > PDW
>
>
>
> Good point!

Until it is closely examined it certainly is a good point. Then it is the worst. I have outlined the reasoning behind why pro-life position can be argued to be the reasonable conclusion on the basis of what the unborn is. I have yet to see a single response that picks it apart and finds fault with it. I suspect that the best the opposition can muster is denial or just plain ignoring the points I raised or engaging in a genetic fallacy of one form or another by finding fault with me personally and my stance on the issue. However, I have honestly and without partisanship examined the particulars of what the unborn is and brought out specific details that identifies it as a complete human being at a certain stage of development and argued that on those grounds they are entitled to the protection afforded any other member of the human family. None has taken up the banner to challenge those claims and assertions with counter evidence that would prove the contrary. I will not assume that absence of evidence to prove me wrong is evidence of absence of evidence. So, I am willing to entertain opposing arguments if anyone is willing to field one.

[Syd M.]

Sounds good to me.

PDW