Replies

I'm am sorry for you (in a sympathetic way.) But the fact is you guys want so badly for there to be some deterimental consequences to the woman's health that your advocates will conjure up bad science to find it.

I'm not sure why you care that abortion mothers are getting sick anyhow, since they are all murderers to you anyhow -- they're going to burn in hell for eternity. What's a little breast cancer?

Face it, you are trying to scare them with self-interest rather than convincing them that abortion is murder and wrong in its own right. You are diluting your message, excusing the "perpetrators of murder", engaging is wishful thinking (bad science searching for a pre-ordained conclusion) and condemning those so afflicted to the permanent hell fires anyhow.

Such is the emotionalism of religiosity. You don't want a judge deciding these issues anyhow, you want a holy see.

you guys want so badly for there to be some deterimental consequences to the woman's health that your advocates will conjure up bad science to find it.

My Mom died of cancer. I have had two bouts with cancer. I want people to be able to protect themselves in every way possible. Information is a life saver. How dare you say the things you did. Abortion hurts women. Women are dying from breast cancer. How can you say those things?

But the fact is you guys want so badly for there to be some deterimental consequences to the woman's health that your advocates will conjure up bad science to find it.

HELLLOOOOO, did you have any knowledge of this case before you started spewing your ad hominem attacks? The judge ruled in favor of an abortionist making the unfounded claim that abortion doesn't cause cancer. The burden of proof is on the abortionist and all the available evidence is to the contrary.

The rest of your post is a fallacious attack on the motivations of those who support the plaintiffs and has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case. Merely getting personal and avoiding the substantive issues is adds nothing to this discussion. It's too bad you and your side do not seem to have anything relevant to say.

These people can not be reasoned with. Their zeal to stop abortions blinds them. They have posted their studies time and time again. I have read them, as have many others. A meta-analysis is not a scientific study - they are not accepted - they are not duplicable. I will continue to post that this this scare tactics and junk science as long as they post this nonsense. Trying to compell abortion providers to mention these studies is BAD precident. I have told them that, but they don't listen.

You miss the whole point: We are trying to appeal to reasonable women to show them that science shows us that abortion harms the mom no matter how she looks at it.

Aside from being painfully bad for the baby, it is emotionally bad for the mother, and medically abortion causes breast cancer (as well as cervical cancer if you believe this week's leading British medical journal, the Lancet).

This approach is geared at moms who are blind to the murder involved but who have demonstrated they are very self-interested (those moms incined to abort). Its all very rational and not at all religious, notwithstanding your humorous claims to the contrary.

"The biological explanation for the abortion-breast cancer link makes sense even to the non-scientist. Thus far, it remains unrefuted.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes cells in the breast to multiply.

This process is called proliferation. By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

Estradiol causes both normal and pre-cancerous cells to multiply. If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called differentiation takes place.

Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk ducts, and this second process shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant.

On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk-producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy."

*http://abortionbreastcancer.com/abc_summary.htm