If you haven't already done so, please add your signature
to the petition for the unborn (and ask others to do likewise)
These little ones need our voice to speak out for them.
God Bless you!
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b7c063605a8.htm
Posted on 11/23/2001 10:16:11 PM PST by AgThorn
Abortion/breast cancer link can't be denied
This is in response to an Oct. 9 letter by Emele J. Peters, "Link between abortion, breast cancer unproven".
Last month was Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Tens of thousands of people participated in the Race for the Cure sponsored by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.
Our women's group is troubled this foundation doesn't recognize 44 years of research and 28 studies linking abortion with breast cancer. All are listed on our Web site, www.AbortionBreastCancer.com.
The foundation's use of recall bias theory to dismiss the research is inexcusable. Recall bias says that patients are more likely to honestly report their past abortions than healthy women (or that, unbelievably, patients make up abortions they've never had). The problem is that although a number of teams of scientists have tested for it, no one ever found plausible evidence of it. A Swedish team which tested for it found itself in the position of having to explain why seven patients said they'd had abortions that computerized records said they'd never had. Faced with having to argue that the women either lied or over-reported their abortions, this team withdrew its ridiculous claim of having found evidence of recall bias.
Although the foundation identifies postponement of a first-term pregnancy and childlessness as risk factors, it provides funding for breast cancer screening to Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider and a distributor of contraceptives. This is akin to an anti-cancer organization providing funds to a tobacco company to screen for lung cancer.
Scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health warned in 1986 that "induced abortion before first-term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." A medical book published in 1998 and the 1988 Henderson lecture identify abortion as a risk factor. Scientists have long known, but are reluctant to say to the public, "Abortion causes breast cancer." It's time to put women's lives ahead of greed and ideology so that women who've had abortions can take steps to reduce their risks and seek early detection of the disease.
Karen Malec, president
Coalition on Abortion/
Breast Cancer
Palos Heights
I DESPISE the spin of "PRO CHOICE." It's for the cowardly who don't have the guts to say.. "I CHOOSE to kill a baby/babies,when it suits me," which is the God's honest truth. I want the conservative media to use that term: KILLING A BABY and stop this charade. For anyone who cares about the subject, I hope you'll use that term, and say it as it really is to break up this propagandizing of softening a murder.
Anyone .. any woman especially, who has taken the time to learn about the effects of estrogen on humans (estrogen: whose mission is to grow, proliferate ((I LOVE THAT ... PRO LIFE RATE .. never really saw that before)), multiply) will grasp the absolutely logical conclusions that can be drawn from being overloaded with estrogens. Not only do we gals manufacture it, but we're exposed to all kinds of fake or xenoestrogens in exposures to chemicals in foods, pesticides, and beauty and personal care products that use petrochemicals in their ingredients, etc. Our bodies were never designed to process and eliminate these fake estrogens, they're like plastic that just doesn't break down, and they're evil; therefore, they accumulate in the fatty tissues of our bodies until the body cannot take that "grow" message anymore.
Over years of accumulation, I do believe the body cannot tolerate the abundance of estrogens we can absorb, and that is why I believe we are seeing horrendous breast cancer statistics, and tragically in younger and younger gals.
On the other hand, progesterone is a mother gland and a neutralizer of the effects of estrogen. Numerous documentation exists that show this benefit. I use progesterone cream every day .. because I know that as much as my diet and personal choices are made to be estrogen-free, there are too many chemicals that act like estrogen in the body that I may unintentionally absorb, and I truly believe in its protective qualities. It's even been shown to be a benefit in protecting men from prostate cancer.
Progesterone is vital for the baby to survive in the womb, and massive quantities of it are secreted during pregnancy to ensure the its survival. I believe it's possible that killing that baby shuts down the progesterone, which is has been so protective, and therefore opens up the body to un-neutralized estrogen .... an unnatural state ... as the breast tissue is protected during the pregnancy so that the mother can nurse.
So, it makes perfect sense ...in addition to all the chemicals we're exposed to that mimick estrogen in the body, the more years a gal is not pregnant is that many more exposures monthly of estrogen. And, unnaturally ending a pregnancy causes an unnatural imbalance of hormones that can lead to this risk.
It all gets back to how we were innately designed, it's biblical, much as the Feminazzis hate it. When you fight God and Mother Nature, there can be unsuspected consequences.
God Bless the Innocents ... please pray for them! Here's a website .. check out the Estrogen Connection page:
Oh, and before you start assuming that am advocating abortion, please don't. am NOT doing any such thing !
For one thing, the chemical invasion into our culture just didn't exist decades ago .. they've created hundreds of thousands of powerful chemicals in the last 15-20 years .. synthetic everything that the body wasn't designed to handle. Engineered foods weren't around decades ago. Cows weren't pumped full of steroids and hormones to fatten them up for market decades ago.
Many fat-free and low calorie products have been so dried by the removal of standard oils and fats that they add a petroleum chemical humectant, same thing that's in lotions and skin moisturizers. You'll find it, among other things, in some brands of canned frosting and fat-free sour cream.
Ask parents of teenage children how much quicker this generation is maturing compared to theirs ... little girls of 10 and 11 are starting their periods and growing breasts even younger. There's plenty of information readily available if you're truly interested.
He worked like a dog at a very stressful job, got chronic stomach ulcers, and unfortunately he liked his alcohol, which is can be a carcinogen when overused by ulcer patients.
How many more Oh Lord, how many more before You come to their aid and avenge them?
Alas
|
|
|
|
Women have the right to know that there are now 27 out of 34 worldwide studies (from among those 13 out of 14 were American studies) which show a link between induced abortion and breast cancer, seventeen of which are statistically significant, and most of which have been done by abortion supporters. The first study was published in an English publication in 1957 and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 or 160% increased risk of breast cancer among women who had had an induced abortion. [Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63] Abortion is an "elective surgical procedure and a woman’s exposure to the hormones of early pregnancy -- if it is interrupted -- is so great, that just one interrupted pregnancy is enough to make a significant difference in her risk" (Professor Joel Brind, President, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Endeavour Forum Public Meeting, August 24, 1999, Malvern, Victoria, Australia). The American Cancer Society has stated in its fact sheet that abortion "may be associated with increased breast cancer risk" {American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures --1996, at 12 (1996)}. (An employee of the American Cancer Society with the Office of Corporation Counsel has asked us to remove the Society's 1996 statement from our web site. We have contacted the Society and asked them to inform us of the legal basis for their request, if any.) Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to do a study on the abortion-breast cancer link. The study found that, "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women." It was also reported that women under the age of 18 or over the age of 29 who obtained induced abortions had more than a twofold increase in risk. Women with a family history of breast cancer who procured an abortion were reported to have statistically significant risk increases of 80 percent. Teenagers under age 18 with a family history breast cancer who procured abortions had an incalculably high risk increase. Because American women already face a lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of about 12 percent, the increased risk from a single induced abortion is comparable to the risk of lung cancer from long-term heavy smoking. However, not all women who have had abortions will get breast cancer, and not all women who have breast cancer have had abortions. There is one more way in which abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Medical experts universally agree that it is healthier for a married woman not to postpone her first full-term pregnancy. One Harvard study reported that each year that a woman postpones her first full-term pregnancy increases her breast cancer risk by 3.5%. [Dr. Brian MacMahon, Dr. Dimitrios Trichopoulos, et al., “Age at any Birth and Breast Cancer Risk,” International Journal of Cancer, 1983;31:701704]. An abortion causes a woman to forego the benefit of increased protection from breast cancer resulting from an earlier first full-term pregnancy. World Health Organization scientists in 1970 confirmed this saying that, "It is estimated that women having their first child when aged under 18 years have only about one-third the breast cancer risk of those whose first birth is delayed until the age of 35 years or more." (MacMahon B, et al. Bull Wld Health Org, 1970; 43-209-21).
|
In assessing risk, theoretically, common factors are sought between persons exhibiting a condition, then research done to find how those common factors may (or may not) impact risk.
If there exists a significant number of women who have had abortions, and those abortions caused an unnatural change in stem cell biochemistry, with biochemical differences between miscarriages and induced abortions, and that change in biochemistry can be linked to tumor development, then causality may be established.
There is no guarantee that having an abortion will cause cancer, any more than that not having an abortion will guarantee that a woman will not contract breast cancer, only the indication that the cell changes brought about by induced alterations of biochemistry (via abortion) increase the risk of contracting breast cancer.
If other risk factors are present as well, this only serves as an indicator of probability in a large population that any individual will be more likely (than someone who does not have these risk factors) to contract the disease.
Where this type of assesment becomes scary, aside from the potential for bogus, agenda driven research and enriching trial lawyers, is when you seek insurance and your medical records (and previous generation's medical records) are there on the computer for all to see. Even with (especially with?)socialized medicine, you become a bad medical investment, and do not receive coverage or care.
In this case, however, the agenda bias is against finding a link, socially, medically, in liability terms, and from the research folks who find aborted babies a convenient source of stem cells and other tissue on which to conduct research.
Now, if there's a connection between abortion and breast cancer that does not mean there is not also a connection between hereditary and breast cancer. Why you should be "insulted" by scientific determined probable causalities is beyond me. Unless you are like Mayor Barry.
YOU are the one giving the all or nothing view, WAKE UP!
This is akin to a smear tactic. Why don't YOU get off your high horse, dear, and look to the beam in your own eye ?
In the 19th century, most girls reached meniarchy at 16. By the 1920's, that had fallen to 13 or 14. This age held fast until the later part of the 20th century.
I am sorry that you lost your father at such a young age. If you don't know, ulcers are caused by a virus, and no, alcohol doesn't help . Up until very recently, ulcers, reflux, and hyateal hernias were misdiagnosed, mistreaed, and ALL can ( and usually DO ! ) lead to cancer and death; when untreated.
Unfortunately, I do NOT have to do anymore " studying " about cancers. My family has been riddled with it for many generations. None of them had abortions, and none of them ate poor diets,imbibed alcohol very much, and one ONE person smoked tobacco. Oh, and yes, this sad littany includes a child , and young adults .
They HAVE done so many studies, which conclusively PROVE that there IS a genetic link, in families, to a predispusition to getting cancer. To ignore this, is not only risky, it is often fatal . We have , thankfully , come to a point, where the patient is no longer treated as a lepper, people no loger whisper and say " THE BIG C " , but talk openly about , and give support to those who have cancer and their families. That is a HUGE step away from the way is used to be, as short a time ago, as in the 1960's.
The prolife zealots , like all fanatics ( and NO, I am NOT oe who is in favor of mass abortion, and consider PBA infanticide ) will latch onto this article, and incorrectly assume that those unfortunate breast cancer patients have had at least oe abortion. Just look at the majority of replies on this thread !
These abortions lead to breast cancer articles have been posted on FR for YEARS ! This is NOT " new " news. Everytime one of these threads pop up, it's ALWAYS the same thing , and I, for one, am sick of it !
I don't agree with this statement at all .. I don't believe being "better fed" causes earlier menses, and therefore more estrogen activity in the body, which definitely is a link to cancers. So we disagree .. and I'm not calling you names or insulting you personally ... a sign of defensiveness on your part. As for ulcers .. SOME ulcers are caused by a virus .. not all. My Dear Dad may have gotten the ulcers from the alcohol to begin with, and I have relatives with ulcers who were not helped when prescribed antibiotics for their ulcers.
If, as you say, your family's been riddled by cancers, I find it hard to believe that you are so rigid and closedminded in your views. I would think you would be even more motivated to be open to possible links for prevention reasons for you and your family. What's most distressing is your nastiness and condescending attitude ... very pathetic. So much for kindess and unity in America ... so sad that our Freeper community has to be contaminated by cynical people. I continue to be grateful for the rest of the Freepers and Jim Robinson. Hope you can learn to disagree without being disagreeable in the future.
Antibiotics alone won't cure ulcers. It is only in conjunction with Tagamet, Prilosec, the new Prilosec pill which helps to regrow the linings of the stomach and espophigus ( sp ? ) , etc. that cures ulcers. It may have been the alcohol, which did your father in, yes. I am sorry. He was ill before there were better treatments.
" Ridgid " ? That's projection, dear.
Oh, breast and prostate cancer have a common source.
It's not abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
