I read the article in its entirety before posting. Since the political hotbutton of abortion/breast cancer appears finally to have been dismissed, is this the next tactic of denying women control over their own bodies?
Yes, barefoot and pregnant!
>>I read the article in its entirety before posting. Since the political hotbutton of abortion/breast cancer appears finally to have been dismissed, is this the next tactic of denying women control over their own bodies?
How does pointing out the fact that these synethetic steriods cause cancer have to do with women controlling their bodies?
How does ingesting carcinogens equal control over your body?
Isn't being fully informed on all possibilities the only way to truly control your body? If you don't know the risks, what kind of control is that?
Congratulations, you just submitted the most logically faulty post of the day! Not just one, but TWO fallacies in one sentence!!! Even after fightnight outed your fallacious abortion red-herring in post #7, you still attempted to fraudulently link it again more before following it up with a false appeal to motivation. Rather than even attempt to refute the premise of the article, you simply throw tired talking points. Bravo, we can only hope that the rest of your pro-abortion ilk will continue to use such ineffective and infantile arguments!
HARDLY DISMISSED! Ask PhD, Joel Brind:
At the heart of informed consent is the right for any patient considering a medical or surgical intervention (especially a matter of choice, like abortion) to be informed of any change the procedure would make in her risk of getting a serious illness later on. It is important to remember that a woman considering abortion is already pregnant, so her risk of breast cancer after abortion needs to be compared to what her risk would be if she did not have the abortion. There is no authority--the NCI or anyone else--who denies that the breast cancer risk of a woman who (especially as a teenager who has not had any children yet) has an abortion is higher than the risk of a pregnant woman who does not have the abortion. Yet these authorities (and the abortion providers) pretend there is no link, and women--like Eve Silver--are thus victimized.
And of course, we're not talking about women being forced to do anything or not: just about forcing medical practitioners to give an honest appraisal of risks and options BEFORE subjecting a patient to a surgical or medical procedure.
And by the way, no one seems to have any trouble listing cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer, even though 85% of long-term cigarette smokers do NOT get lung cancer. Same with abortion: Women have a right to know ALL the risks. Period.
When did any objection to abortion have anything to do with what a woman chose to do with her own body? That's like saying the objection to someone murdering their spouse is telling someone what they can do with their house.