Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Aborted pregnancy boosts breast cancer risk - study
Foodconsumer ^ | August 19, 2012 | David Liu, PHD

Posted on 08/20/2012 1:19:56 PM PDT by NYer

Sunday Aug 19, 2012 (foodconsumer.org) -- Inducing abortion to discontinue a woman's pregnancy may increase her risk of breast cancer, according to a study recently published in Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention.

The study led by A.R. Jiang of Division of Epidemiology Jiangsu Province Institute of Cancer Research in Janjing China showed induced abortion was associated with significantly increased risk of breast cancer.

The researchers found the association after analyzing data from 668 cases of breast cancer and 682 population-based controls in Jiangsu Province of China.

Specifically, premenopausal women who had chosen to abort pregnancy three or more times were at 141 percent increased risk of breast cancer. After adjustment for other factors, the risk increased by 55 percent.

Postmenopausal women who had ever had one induced abortion were at 104 percent increased risk for breast cancer. After adjustment for other risk factors, the risk was still increased by 82 percent.  Among postmenopausal women, more induced abortions were correlated with a higher risk.

Induced abortion means a pregnant woman chooses to discontinue her pregnancy. Another type of abortion is spontaneous abortion in which the abortion is caused by abnormal health condition(s).

In this study, spontaneous abortion or involuntarily discontinued pregnancy was not found significantly to influence the risk of breast cancer. However, postmenopausal women who had a history of spontaneous abortions still faced an increased risk.

The researchers concluded that inducing abortion to discontinue pregnancy may play an important role in the development of breast cancer and the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk is affected by the menopausal status.

Although the study was not a trial meaning that the study by itself could not absolutely prove that induced abortion is the cause for the increase in the breast cancer risk in both pre-and post-menopausal women, prior evidence indicates that induced abortion, particularly in a later stage of pregnancy such as second trimester, does increase the risk.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, professor of surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Dr. Joel Brind, professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the city of New York explain induced abortion prevents breast tissue from growing from immature type 1 and 2 lobules into mature type 3 and 4 lobules, which makes pregnant women more susceptible to carcinogenesis at extremely high levels of cancer-promoting estrogen during pregnancy.

Lanfranchi and Brind write, "During a normal pregnancy, estrogen levels rise 2000% by the end of the 1st trimester. During the first 2 trimesters, the breast grows because there is an increase in the number of immature type 1 and 2 lobules. During the 3rd trimester, the breast stops growing but lobules mature into Type 3 & 4 lobules. During the growth phase of pregnancy, the breasts become sore and tender." 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: abortion; cancer; missouri; rape; sarahsteelman; toddakin

1 posted on 08/20/2012 1:19:59 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah

Ping!


2 posted on 08/20/2012 1:20:43 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
same study was done in 1988...

google search --> abortion, breast cancer

American Medical Association has known about this for years

That's why the Suzy Sunshine Foundation wanted to dump Planned Parenthood last year...

Now, tell me again ... Is it liberal Democrats or Republicans who are against women

I can't think of anything worse than a woman having her breasts chopped off...

3 posted on 08/20/2012 1:25:18 PM PDT by xtinct (The will of God will never take you where the Grace of God will not protect you..Be Strong Patriots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Waiting eagerly for ABC/NBC/CBS and the New York Times to run huge headline stories about this study, which is far from the first one to indicate a possible link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.....

waiting.....
waiting.....
waiting.....

Look - squirrel!


4 posted on 08/20/2012 1:26:17 PM PDT by VikingMom (I may not know what the future holds but I know who holds the future!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xtinct

How about being drawn and quartered?


5 posted on 08/20/2012 1:27:45 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Nothing new about this! I heard statistics to back this up in the 70’s.


6 posted on 08/20/2012 1:32:22 PM PDT by Slump Tester (What if I'm pregnant Teddy? Errr-ahh -Calm down Mary Jo, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xtinct
I can't think of anything worse than a woman having her breasts chopped off...

As a male, I can....

7 posted on 08/20/2012 1:40:23 PM PDT by lightman (Settling for the "lesser of two..." is still choosing Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xtinct
I can't think of anything worse than a woman having her breasts chopped off...

Being shredded while in mommy's tummy and sucked out? Being burned to death with chemicals (same locale)? Being allowed to almost make it and having your brains sucked out?

Yeah, I can think of worse.

I just wish women would think of both themselves and their child and maybe all of that could be avoided.

8 posted on 08/20/2012 1:50:21 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Oh, I’m sure this isn’t possible. Just like it is not possible for severe stress (as in rape) to interfere with the female body’s ability to conceive.


9 posted on 08/20/2012 1:52:20 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

But a 19% increased risk for lung cancer is enough to shut down businesses across the country because they want to allow tobacco smoking.

For statistical significance an increased increased risk (a/k/a relative risk) needs to be over 200% and preferably over 300%.


10 posted on 08/20/2012 2:24:11 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Induced abortion also increases the risk of fetal death in subsequent pregnancies. It is as bad as smoking during pregnancy.

Induced abortion also causes infertility.

Each additional abortion increases the risk of future adverse outcomes.

Not that I have any sympathy for a woman who chooses to use abortion as birth control, but I think the risks should be explained, preferably before she ever engages in sexual activity.


11 posted on 08/20/2012 2:46:05 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

As a professional statistician, I know your comment is nonsense. Statistical significance has to do with how sure you are that an effect exists, not how large the effect is. With a large sample, small effects can be identified and found significant.

The sample sizes in the studies described in the article are easily large enough for effects of the size described to be statistically significant; therefore there is high confidence the effect is real, assuming the researchers did their jobs competently and honestly.


12 posted on 08/20/2012 2:51:31 PM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor

My comment is not nonsense insofar as this study is going to be ignored but the statistically manipulated “study” about second hand smoke is considered gospel and has actually put people out of work and out of business.

It is all about political correctness and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the study.


13 posted on 08/20/2012 4:31:17 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer

God looks after his own. Meanwhile all the women who had abortions an now have breast cancer are all sporting pink ribbons next to their, “I am Pro Choice” bumper stickers.

If you don’t murder your kids you probably won’t get breast cancer.


14 posted on 08/20/2012 5:09:27 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I'm sorry, but I was making a technical criticism because you misused a technical term. You said

For statistical significance an increased increased risk (a/k/a relative risk) needs to be over 200% and preferably over 300%.

There is no relationship between your numbers of 200% and 300% and the concept of "statistical significance" which has a specific technical meaning.

15 posted on 08/20/2012 6:50:29 PM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor

Then tell me at what percentage an increased risk reaches statistical significance in epidemiology.

I’m not looking to argue with you - I truly am interested in knowing


16 posted on 08/20/2012 7:29:05 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’m a woman undergoing chemo for breast cancer right now and I’ve never had an abortion.


17 posted on 08/20/2012 7:48:31 PM PDT by wontbackdown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wontbackdown

Abortion increases risk, it is not the sole cause of breast cancer. Similarly millions of people who have never smoked have died of lung cancer.


18 posted on 08/20/2012 7:54:22 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

That depends on how large your sample is.

A 200% factor (twice as many incidences) will already show significance when there are less than 10 expected occurences. For example, if the incidence increases from 7% to 14%, a sample of 100 will show statistical significance (you get 14, you expect 7, probability of getting 14 by chance alone is under 1% so it’s a significant effect).

If you want to detect a relative risk factor of 150% (half again as many incidences) you need a larger sample size. For example, if the incidence increases from 7% to 10.5%, and you have a sample size of 400, you get 42 when you expect 28 and that also has a less than 1% probability of occurring by chance alone so you call it statistically significant.

There is a formula giving the relationship betweem the following variables

expected frequency
observed frequency
sample size
significance level.

The percentage you are working with is the ratio of expected frequency to observed frequency. In my examples, I used a 1% significance level (meaning the result is declared significant if it has less than a 1% probability of occurring by chance alone if there were really no systematic difference).


19 posted on 08/21/2012 3:46:05 PM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

That depends on how large your sample is.

A 200% factor (twice as many incidences) will already show significance when there are less than 10 expected occurences. For example, if the incidence increases from 7% to 14%, a sample of 100 will show statistical significance (you get 14, you expect 7, probability of getting 14 by chance alone is under 1% so it’s a significant effect).

If you want to detect a relative risk factor of 150% (half again as many incidences) you need a larger sample size. For example, if the incidence increases from 7% to 10.5%, and you have a sample size of 400, you get 42 when you expect 28 and that also has a less than 1% probability of occurring by chance alone so you call it statistically significant.

There is a formula giving the relationship betweem the following variables

expected frequency
observed frequency
sample size
significance level.

The percentage you are working with is the ratio of expected frequency to observed frequency. In my examples, I used a 1% significance level (meaning the result is declared significant if it has less than a 1% probability of occurring by chance alone if there were really no systematic difference).


20 posted on 08/21/2012 3:46:31 PM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson