Posted on 09/22/2014 7:01:19 PM PDT by CharlesOConnell
Thank you for the post. I get so damned tired of fending off that godawful “smash” machine, after arguing “risk factors” with well-meaning, butt-covering, modern medicine procedure following, but brain-dead docs, who sleep walk through office visits.
I told a pushy doc once, that I would go through with the “smash radiation machine” right after he had his family jewels equally smashed and radiated.
All I got was that “look”, and a note in my file. He had no sense of humor, and if I had to pay his medical malpractice insurance bill, I probably wouldn’t think me amusing, either.
Had my first precious baby at 18 yrs, breast-fed the rest of my four until it was beyond unfashionable (but never in public, respecting the fragility of the horses in the streets), ... and never had an abortion, did my best to eat properly, and so on.
If I am an outlier at my ripe old age and get a lump, so be it. Hospice, here I come!
I will blame it on all those x-rays of my feet given in shoestores back in the 50’s, or the imminent nuclear bombing attacks that I had to duck&cover (under that tiny desk) in early elementary school, or something equally ridiculous and beyond my personal control.
Bookmarking for tomorrow morning’s reading.
No where does the article say women who don’t have abortions are breast cancer free.
Plus are you really sure that every woman you know never had had an abortion?
I have seen pro-abortion writers try to downplay the link by claiming that women lie about having abortions, so no real connection can be made.
Of course, when they make that claim, what they omit is that women who have not had abortions are rarely going to lie and claim otherwise. But women who have had abortions will lie and say they haven't (because of the associated stigma). This pattern of lying predominately in one direction actually means that breast cancer cases associated with prior abortion are shifted into the non-abortive cases category, which lowers the odds ratio below its true value. In other words, the risk of breast cancer associated with abortion is higher than what those studies show.
It’s fairly obvious to me that the deniers are more concerned about promoting their own dogmatic beliefs than they are about saving women’s lives. The radical feminists believe that women need to be liberated from childbearing. The radical abortion movement believes that Planned Parenthood needs to make money. And the radical environmentalists believe the planet needs to be relieved of its burden of humanity.
Abortion has never been about women's rights. It's primarily about using women as a cash crop. It's about teaching women that the only value of a human being is utilitarian--if that person is a non-contributor, he/she is a burden that may be eliminated without qualm. The message with this is that the woman having the abortion is just as dispensable. It's also about teaching women that they are completely incapable of independence or responsibility--that by their nature, they are like animals in heat when men are present--that they have to depend on some kind of external intervention to prevent them from being baby factories--that they are incapable of making any rational decision to take steps to prevent pregnancy when they don't want a baby (and thus are incapable of any kind of responsibility). Pro-abortion is fundamentally anti-woman.
Good point...I’m against abortion but this conclusion would seem to have wide reaching repercussions for women in general.
Here’s what I don’t understand.
If abortion can encourage breast cancer, why wouldn’t a natural miscarriage have the same result?
Almost every woman in my family has naturally lost their first pregnancy. (It’s to the point where everyone stays calm through the first pregnancy and, when it’s lost, we remind the mother that it was her body’s ‘practice pregnancy’. Second pregnancies never have a problem.)
Now, in my family, its pretty dramatic, but I know many women who lose the first one. It’s not uncommon.
With that in mind, why would abortion be more likely to cause breast cancer than a natural miscarriage? Has anyone ever done a study where they compare women who’ve had abortions with those who have had miscarriages with those who’ve only had successful pregnancies with those who’ve never been pregnant at all?
With an abortion the hormones do not kick in because the hormones stop at the point of the abortion, so the cells in the breasts remain open and vulnerable to cancer.
My information comes from honest studies I read in 1985.
Most of the studies I have seen today are being done to prove that there is no connection between abortion and cancer. These studies are funded by Planned Parenthood or the drug industry, both having a vested interest to "prove" there is no connection between what they do and breast cancer. These studies lump in miscarriage as if they are medically the same thing when they are not. Doctors routinely call a miscarriage an "abortion," which is unfair to the woman who has just miscarried.
I would like to add one thing. All of those babies who were miscarried will be waiting for you all in heaven.
I think it is because even natural miscarriages are, well... natural. Abortion is an abrupt and unnatural surgical procedure, performed in most cases in the first trimester. The body is not prepared for it.
So why not tubular/ectopic pregnancies? In those situations, the embryo is developing fine, it’s just in the wrong place. It takes a surgery to suddenly stop it. It *is* an abortion. (One of my relatives had a perfectly healthy embryo that had attached to her ovary. She had to have the embryo and the ovary removed with an emergency surgery when she was 11 weeks pregnant. It broke her heart.)
Has anyone checked to see if tubular/ectopic pregnancies result in higher rates of breast cancer?
And what about molar pregnancies? That’s about as ‘unnatural’ as it can get. The hormones go insane in both directions. (My daughter)
Pregnancy is wrought with danger (for mom and baby). Yet, the only group that’s consistently demonstrated an increase in breast cancer are women who don’t have children and never get pregnant. (the nun study was shocking in that regard)
I’m pro-life, but I’m also pro-truth and, until *all* of these factors are taken into account, I just don’t see it.
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.