Abortion doesn't cause breast cancer - Page 2

vergiss · 09-24-05, 09:43 AM

*pet* My point was painfully obvious.

What, my comment's inane compared to that?!

What part of "we all have to die one day" do you disagree with? Every day there's some study that says cell phones cause brain tumours, chocolate causes bowel cancer or cabbage causes infertility. Do you listen to all of it?

Felicity · 09-24-05, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vergiss

*pet* My point was painfully obvious.

What, my comment's inane compared to that?!

What part of "we all have to die one day" do you disagree with? Every day there's some study that says cell phones cause brain tumours, chocolate causes bowel cancer or cabbage causes infertility. Do you listen to all of it?

"that" was to demonstrate how inane your comment was.

Its contribution to the likelihood of breast cancer isn't the ONLY reason not to have an abortion--it's just one of MANY MANY reasons that taken as a whole slam the door on the sanity of the practice--even for those that think personhood is a debatable position for the embryo.

vergiss · 09-25-05, 03:22 AM

How about this - being forced to have an unwanted child may cause depression, anxiety and even psychosis in the mother. Or does her health suddenly not matter anymore?

Felicity · 09-25-05, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vergiss

How about this - being forced to have an unwanted child may cause depression, anxiety and even psychosis in the mother. Or does her health suddenly not matter anymore?

You know that having an abortion can do the same--and more often and WORSE!

And forced? No one is FORCED to have sex unless it's rape--then it's a crime and the guilty party should be punished--NOT the life that may be created via the crime.

steen · 09-25-05, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

Abortion may not "cause" breast cancer as in "abortion = Breast Cancer", but it contributes to the likelihood of developing breast cancer--like smoking contributes to the likelihood of lung cancer.

Your claim is false.

I shall deal with your previous post, INCLUDING how many of the studies you skipped, later

Abortion does not contribute to breast cancer. The data solidly disproves that prolife lie.

steen · 09-25-05, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

Its contribution to the likelihood of breast cancer isn't the ONLY reason not to have an abortion--

But then, there isn't any such contribution.

steen · 09-25-05, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

You know that having an abortion can do the same--and more often and WORSE!

Another outright lie. Both Depression, anxiety and psychosis is much more prevalent in women who have given birth. Could you please cease making such outright false claims, thanks? I know I have pointed this out before, but it seems to not sink in, so could you please pay attention this time?

Quote:

And forced? No one is FORCED to have sex unless it's rape--then it's a crime and the guilty party should be punished--NOT the life that may be created via the crime.

sex is not consent to pregnancy. Yes, I know you prolifers continue to claim this in your usual irrelevant fashion, but it still doesn't make it real.

Dogger807 · 09-26-05, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

no info regarding women who had abortions and breast cancer but who had no children.

Beral V. Bull D. Doll R. Peto R. Reeves G. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries.[see comment]. [Review] [85 refs] [Journal Article. Multicenter Study. Review] Lancet. 363(9414):1007-16, 2004 Mar 27.

1. ...and age at first birth...

2. Because the extent of under-reporting of past induced abortions might be influenced by whether or not women had been diagnosed with breast cancer, results of the studies--including a total of 44000 women with breast cancer--that used prospective information on abortion (ie, information that had been recorded before the diagnosis of breast cancer) were considered separately from results of the studies--including 39000 women with the disease--that used retrospective information (recorded after the diagnosis of breast cancer).

3. Collectively, the studies of breast cancer with retrospective recording of induced abortion yielded misleading results, possibly because women who had developed breast cancer were, on average, more likely than other women to disclose previous induced abortions.

1. See my explanation above in LASH.
2. A very large portion of the studies (nearly HALF) were “considered separately” due to a lack of pre-cancer diagnosis recorded proof of abortion—supposedly eliminating the “recall bias” factor.
3. Personally—I’m having a hard time understanding how women who have cancer are MORE likely to be honest than women who don’t have cancer....except that that is very convenient to SOME studies that get discounted based on “recall bias”—even though several of the studies you cited rely on the SAME type of information gathering processes.

Mahue-Giangreco M. Ursin G. Sullivan-Halley J. Bernstein L. Induced abortion, miscarriage, and breast cancer risk of young women. [Journal Article] Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 12(3):209-14, 2003 Mar.

1. findings depend heavily on the comparison group and that the use of parous women as a reference group for nulliparous women may artificially inflate risk.
744 patients < or =40 years of age

2. In-person interviews were conducted to obtain a detailed reproductive history.

1. The AGE of the women should be considered a "quite young" population to be studying--I wonder how many of those women got BC in their middle and late 40s, 50s, 60s......??????
2. It’s hypocritical to discount one study based on recall bias—and then use the same sort of study to SUPPORT your point of view. Either it is NOT VALID or it IS VALID—Again—it’s the same “recall bias” question—why is okay for studies that support the conclusion that there is no ABC link—but NOT OKAY for findings that conclude there IS a link?

Note purple text in quote above

Note purple text in quote above

Sanderson M. Shu XO. Jin F. Dai Q. Wen W. Hua Y. Gao YT. Zheng W. Abortion history and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. [Journal Article] International Journal of Cancer. 92(6):899-905, 2001 Jun 15.

In-person interviews were completed with 1,459 incident breast cancer cases ascertained through a population-based cancer registry,

This is a SURVEY (“response rates”) thus—once again the hypocritical okay to have “recall bias” if it supports a preferred conclusion

And for good meassure.........check this out...
LONG-TERM PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES
OF INDUCED ABORTION:
A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
John M. Thorp, Jr., MD
Department of Epidemiology

..........
INDUCED ABORTION AND SUBSEQUENT BREAST CANCER
As described earlier, we have addressed the linkages between induced abortion and breast neoplasia
differently from the other topics. Rather than replicate the tables and works of numerous other authors we have
summarized four review articles(81,82,83,84), one of which conducted a meta-analysis.(83) (Table 6) Two of the
four reviewers(81,82)found no association between induced abortion and breast cancer, while one found a “small to
non-significant effect”.(84) The sole meta-analysis by Brind et al reported a summary odds ratio for breast cancer
of 1.3 (95% C1 1.2,1.4) in patients with a previous induced abortion.(83) They concluded that induced abortion is
an independent risk factor for breast carcinoma.(83)
All the reviews comment on the potential for bias in data collection, presentation, and analysis emphasizing
in particular the sensitive nature of abortion with its potential for under-reporting. All the reviewers acknowledge
that these potential biases could obscure real relations or create spurious associations. In addition reviewers
comment on the high likelihood of a “file drawer” effect with pertinent studies being withheld from publication due
to the highly politicized atmosphere in which their findings would be reported. None of the reviewers seems to be
comfortable with the scope and content of the current literature. Each advocates for the analysis of prospectively
gathered data that link known pregnancy outcomes to subsequent neoplastic events.(28,85) Brind et al have clearly
demonstrated the need for such studies by showing that despite the relatively low increase in risk they discovered,
the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion would ensure a substantial impact on women’s health
if their conclusions are correct.(83) Weed and Kramer have thoughtfully considered the ways in which the
conclusions one draws on this “thorny” issue are influenced by the moral values each reviewer brings to these
complex data.(85) Nonetheless, a statistically significant positive association between induced abortion and
breast cancer cannot be easily dismissed as Brind’s is the only quantitative review.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SmIWPdXimogJ:www.ncrtl.org/images/concept/evidencereview.pdf+Long-Term+Physical+Psychological+Health+thorp&hl=en

Read the study and read your replies to the original post. My suggestion to you is to do more research. You've done nothing to prove your side of the debate. Nice bit of cut and paste at the end. Definitely shows the biased view you intended. The review it comes from shows an exceptable error margin to state that there is no correlation.

Now I had not heard the presumption that induced abortion cause breast cancer before today so I can't claim to be an expert on the subject. I have been blissfully ignorant to this approach. From what I've read so far it seems nothing more that the old "Masterbation causes blindness." approach. So until provided with evidence and studies pointing otherwise my stance is going to mirror the American cancer society on this one.

"The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of human populations and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints among many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer, in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms, even when both the exposure and the disease are of great importance and interest to us all. At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer."

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/co....asp?sitearea=

Felicity · 09-26-05, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steen

Your claim is false.

I shall deal with your previous post, INCLUDING how many of the studies you skipped, later

Abortion does not contribute to breast cancer. The data solidly disproves that prolife lie.

Don't bother....2 of the studies you quoted flat out SAY there is a link...you may consider the link to be insignificant--fine...my point is there IS evidence of a link. To claim the case is closed is to gamble with women's health.

YE:
abortion after 13 weeks gestation or before their first child. Although increases in risk were observed in such women, they were not statistically significant and could have been due to recall bias.”

CHAUDRY:
A history of spontaneous abortions had a protective effect in gene carriers and increased BC risk in non-gene carriers.”

Those two studies of yours express that there is a link...

My other point was you cannot disregard studies that demonstrate a link between BC and abortion that are subject to recall bias and then but consider valid those studies that conclude there is no link that are subject to the same bias--either it is valid or it is not. If it's valid...I could post several studies showing the link and you would have to accept them as valid sources.

Felicity · 09-26-05, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogger807

So until provided with evidence and studies pointing otherwise my stance is going to mirror the American cancer society on this one.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/co....asp?sitearea=

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/...orts_funds.htm

"The ACS track record raises grave concerns about special interests and conflicts of interest, in sharp opposition to the public interest (Appendix I). Dr. John Durant, former ASCO (American Society for Clinical Oncology) executive, president (awarded the 2002 ASCO Presidential U. S. Cancer Fighter of the Year award), charged: "It has always seemed to me that this was an issue of control by the ACS over the cancer agenda. They are protecting their own fundraising capacity" from competition by survivor groups (quoted in 43). These conflicts of interest extend to the personal. The NDC Legislative Committee cochair, Dr. DeVita, is board chair of CancerSource. com, a Web site promoting the ACS Consumers' Guide to Cancer Drugs; other Legislative Committee members also serve on the board. These members have thus developed their own special interests in a publicly funded forum.

An increasing proportion of ACS revenues come from the pharmaceutical, cancer drug, mammography film and machine, and biotechnology industries. This is reflected in generous ACS allocations for research on highly profitable patented cancer drugs and aggressive promotion of pre-menopausal mammography."

There is reason to question the American Cancer Society's motivations.